[Ros-release] how about a single issue tracker?

[Melonee Wise]

Would conversion tools be provided for migrating current tickets?

-Melonee

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Patrick Mihelich
<mihelich at willowgarage.com>wrote:

> +1
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Brian Gerkey <gerkey at willowgarage.com>wrote:
>
>> hi maintainers,
>>
>> We have many issue trackers for ROS software.  It all started with the
>> way that we originally structured the code.  We wanted a separation
>> between the plumbing (the 'ros' repo), the generic capabilities
>> ('ros-pkg') and the Willow/PR2-specific capabilities ('wg-ros-pkg').
>> As is commonly done, we created a Trac for each repo.  Now, with code
>> stored in approximately 100 repositories, there are trackers at
>> code.ros.org, kforge.ros.org, github, googlecode, and pretty much
>> every other hosting site.
>>
>> This situation is confusing to users.  E.g., if I find a bug in tf,
>> should I file a ticket at the 'ros-pkg' Trac, using the 'geometry'
>> component (which is what the geometry wiki page recommends) or should
>> I use the kforge 'geometry' Trac (because I know that that's where the
>> code actually lives), which has open tickets in it?  How about
>> graph_mapping?  The wiki page (http://ros.org/wiki/graph_mapping)
>> doesn't have a "report bugs" link.  The code is in 'ros-pkg', so maybe
>> I should use the 'ros-pkg' Trac, but then there's no 'graph_mapping'
>> component in that Trac.  It's also inconvenient for developers; I need
>> to query and aggregate from several different trackers to get a
>> picture of my open tickets.
>>
>> Also, each tracker is configured differently from the next, and
>> different sets of credentials are required to file bugs against
>> different parts of the ecosystem.
>>
>> Enough motivation; you get the point.  Federated development makes
>> sense; but federated bug-tracking, I think, does not.
>>
>> A modest proposal: we create a single unified issue tracker for ROS
>> software.  Rough draft:
>> * agree on a tracker system (would be a minor holy war, but not insoluble)
>> * host it at ros.org
>> * authenticate via OpenID (like ROS Answers)
>> * create a component/module for each released stack
>> * create components/modules for unreleased stacks as requested
>> * change (simplify) the wiki to offer a single "report bugs" link that
>> can appear on every page
>> * wherever feasible, move open tickets from legacy trackers into the new
>> one
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>        brian.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ros-release mailing list
>> Ros-release at code.ros.org
>> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-release
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-release mailing list
> Ros-release at code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-release
>
>


-- 
Senior Engineer
Intern Program Director
Willow Garage
68 Willow Rd.
Menlo Park, Ca 94025
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ros.org/pipermail/ros-release/attachments/20111208/7d7b7c6a/attachment-0009.html>