Re: Under-appreciated aspects of literate programming

Methinks I mis-understood your DAG suggestion.

Are you suggesting that the source code is in one DAG
(src/doc/build/etc) and that bugs are in a parallel DAG?

Are you also suggesting that the "bug DAG" be a git repo
separate from the source repo?

In a pile-of-sand (POS) project organized by a directory
structure would it be just as easy to have a bugs directory
in every sub-directory? That would seem to fulfill the goal
but can git have overlapping git-managed directories?

Your bugseverywhere.org link seems to cover most of my
suggestions (except certain LP-specific ones).


On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:23 AM, Ralf Hemmecke <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 08/06/2016 02:51 AM, Tim Daly wrote:
> > Fixed bugs seem uninteresting. Several things failed on my car, for
> > instance, that were fixed. There is rarely the need to revisit
> > failures, except possibly in regression tests, like brakes :-)
>
> I don't understand your comment. You are in favour of even writing a
> book about the bugs in AXIOM and complain about documenting fixed bugs?
> Do I misunderstand something?
>
> > Except for release notes, why would anyone want to know about fixed
> > bugs? At most someone running an old version might want to know.
>
> Not everyone is always up-to-date with the latest version of the
> program. Of course, it would be good if developers can tell of a
> misbehaviour of the program is because of the old version and that the
> bug is already fixed in a newer version.
>
> Furthermore, a bugfix is not always a bugfix. It might fix the
> misbehaviour, but at the same time introduce another misbehaviour,
> because the bugfixer did not completely understand that part of the
> program. Then it would be good for the next developer (or even for the
> same developer---since people tend to forget) to know the underlying
> assumptions for the old bugfix.
>
> > On the other hand, a known bug is an intrinsic part of the system
> > (mis-)behavior and is something worth noting. Why would you want to
> > keep that in, say github?
>
> If you understood my argument, I actually have nothing against putting
> bugs into the same repo, but my suggestion is more that they live on a
> disconnected DAG and not directly in the DAG of the source code commits.
> I think bugs have a different life cycle than source code.
>
> > Axiom has a git repo at savannah, sourceforge, and axiom-developer.
> > Which of these should be "the master bug list?".
>
> As with git, one has to declare one to be the master repo. It's only a
> small thing to declare one bugtracker as the master. And if the
> bugtracker would manage the bugs via git in a separate DAG, then one
> could also have the bugs offline. It would probably a bit of a problem
> to merge different (half-on/half-offline) discussion lines about a bug,
> but I consider that a problem of the specific bugtracker tool.
> Unfortunately, I haven't seen a nice and easy to use bugtracker with
> underlying git.
>
> > It is mildly surprising that the tools to maintain repos (e.g. git)
> > don't have "git bugnote" or some such support built in. Or at least
> > a "git bugfetch" to get the current bug list.
>
> True. I think that https://git-scm.com/docs/git-notes is also not the
> right thing.
>
> Maybe http://bugseverywhere.org/ is close to what I have in mind, but
> I've never tried it and it looks unmaintained (same for ticgit-ng
> https://github.com/jeffWelling/ticgit).
>
> Ralf
>

_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer