On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:23:04AM -0400, Steve Losh wrote:
> I'm still curious as to what people think the role of a web interface like
> this should be. When I wrote it I meant it as a single-user interface like
> the command line one. It could definitely work as a public, read-only
> interface too.
I think the multi-user/public is the way to go. I'd also like to see
a procmail-able script to handle multi-user/public access via email,
which would have all the same issues we're worrying about here.
On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 05:48:06PM -0500, Steve Losh wrote:
> I haven't used CherryPy's session/authentication support before. This
> might be a good time for me to learn. One way it might be able to handle
> multiple users hitting a central server:
>
> * Each user has to register with the server and be approved by an admin.
> * Each account would be mapped to a contributor string, the same one that
> would show up if you were going to commit to the repository.
> * Once you have an account, you'd login to make any changes.
This sounds good to me. Yay spam reduction ;).
> If it's not read-only, what happens when a user changes/adds/whatevers a
> bug? Should CFBE commit that change to the repository right then and
> there? Should it never commit, just update the bugdir and let the commits
> happen manually?
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:23:04AM -0400, Steve Losh wrote:
> One commit per change? Commit every X minutes if necessary?
On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 05:48:06PM -0500, Steve Losh wrote:
> What happens when you have multiple branches for a repository? Should
> there be one CFBE instance for each branch, or a single one that lets you
> switch between branches (effectively switching between revisions)?
There are interesting discussions about the role of distributed
bugtracking here (I'm sure there are others):
http://lwn.net/Articles/281849/
http://community.livejournal.com/evan_tech/248736.html
Personally, I've never done much cherry-picking or anything that would
require me to determine exactly which parts of someone's work I want
and which I don't want. I just merge someone's head and edit out the
bits I don't like, a process that also works well for our current
"commit however you want" BE development model ;). Maybe that just
shows that I only work on minor branches of small projects :p. In the
absence of big-project advice, I think we just limit the web front end
to our current model, and let the web interface commit however it
wants as well ;). +1 for adding a <commit> button to the web
interface ;).
One caveat about a multi-user interface would be that it would allow
the casual users to commit bugs about whatever version they had
installed onto the head of the public-bug branch. In order to figure
out what version of the project they were talking about, the project
should have a way for the user to get a unique version string, ideally
be the bzr-revision-id/git-commit/etc. of the commit for the version
they were using. This would allow developers to determine what branch
to work on with the bug fix, and what branches needed to pull the
eventual fix. If the initially reported buggy version wasn't actually
the root of the bug, oh well :p. Material for a later related bug
report or a reopen.
--
This email may be signed or encrypted with GPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
The GPG signature (if present) will be attached as 'signature.asc'.
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
My public key is at http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~wking/pubkey.txt
