On 05/31/2011 04:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On mån, 2011-05-30 at 22:43 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> One of the conclusions the study group came to was that there should
>> be good integration between the tracker system and the SCM. That was
>> in the days before distributed SCMs were common, and in a commercial
>> context, so I'm not sure how well our reasoning would stand up for the
>> current context, but I see it's been mentioned elsewhere and I think
>> it's a significant consideration, at least.
> What kind of functionality would (good) SCM integration provide?
>
Well, the most obvious one is that when a commit (or merge or push) is
made that fixes a bug, the bug is annotated and its status updated. I
know I've wasted plenty of time in the past first hunting for bugs and
then hunting for the fixes, which aren't always clear from the commit
messages.
In a more centralized system you can also have fairly tightly integrated
workflow (e.g. you can have the tracker open a branch when a bug is
assigned, and you can prevent one being created without an issue being
assigned) but that doesn't seem like such a good fit for us, nor for
anyone using a distributed system like git. You could also argue that
it's a bad thing for commercial organizations, but that's a debate for
another place. The reason we wanted such a thing is that we were
spending significant time managing the workflow issues, and doing tidy up.
cheers
andrew
