* Org-mode as a bug tracker.
@ 2009-07-17 15:34 Óscar Fuentes
2009-07-17 16:25 ` Óscar Fuentes
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Óscar Fuentes @ 2009-07-17 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-orgmode
Right now I'm using Trac (a bug tracker and wiki combo) for bug tracking
and project documentation on my personal projects.
Looking at org-mode it seems a superb system for a this task, at least
for one-person projects:
* Plain text.
* No server required.
* Can be stored on the same VCS than the source code.
* Great for working off-line.
* Features such as time tracking and others that Trac does not support
or does badly with plugins.
* It's Emacs!
The only downside is the lack of a referenced wiki system: simple links
to revisions (r1010) tickets (#245) etc.
Any reasons why this is not a good idea?
Any example of a similar org-mode usage?
--
Óscar
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* Re: Org-mode as a bug tracker. 2009-07-17 15:34 Org-mode as a bug tracker Óscar Fuentes @ 2009-07-17 16:25 ` Óscar Fuentes 2009-07-17 17:58 ` Eric S Fraga 2009-07-18 10:46 ` Bastien 2009-07-18 10:46 ` Bastien 2009-07-20 23:26 ` OrgmodeOrg-mode " Wes Hardaker 2 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Óscar Fuentes @ 2009-07-17 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-orgmode Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> writes: > Any reasons why this is not a good idea? Just remembered that time ago, when the bug tracker for Emacs was discussed, Bastien proposed to use org-mode for it. I argued against because the Emacs bug database would soon fill dozens of megabytes and this volume does not fit the philosophy of a text-based database. So I calculated what amount of plain text would require a replica of my Trac system: it's about 40 MB, with a few thousands tickets. I could partitionate this on four unequal parts, though, with the largest being 20 MB and 2000 tickets. Is this data volume too much for org? Another nuisance is attached files. This requires an ad-hoc mechanism and I'm not sure I want them stored along with the source files. Any experiences on using org for bug tracking is appreciated. -- Óscar ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: Org-mode as a bug tracker. 2009-07-17 16:25 ` Óscar Fuentes @ 2009-07-17 17:58 ` Eric S Fraga 2009-07-17 18:35 ` Matthew Lundin 2009-07-18 10:46 ` Bastien 1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Eric S Fraga @ 2009-07-17 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Óscar Fuentes; +Cc: emacs-orgmode At Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:25:11 +0200, Óscar Fuentes wrote: [...] > So I calculated what amount of plain text would require a replica of my > Trac system: it's about 40 MB, with a few thousands tickets. I could > partitionate this on four unequal parts, though, with the largest being > 20 MB and 2000 tickets. > > Is this data volume too much for org? > I guess the question would be what you intend to do with the data. For normal bug tracking, I guess inserting, searching and state (todo) handling would be the main tasks. These operations would be either O(n) or O(1), where n is the size of the file, I would imagine, so 20 MB might not be too bad? I can't give you any specific data points that fall into that magnitude but I can say that for files 1% that big, a slow netbook has no problems even doing agenda views which are more expensive operations than those mentioned above. > Another nuisance is attached files. This requires an ad-hoc mechanism > and I'm not sure I want them stored along with the source files. Actually, I'm glad you brought this up. Since moving my org files to be under version control (and boy does that make a difference to my peace of mind!), I don't know how to deal with attachments. Attachments, for me, are usually ephemeral and usually types of documents I don't particularly like to deal with (typically MS Word or PPT). Any suggestions? eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Org-mode as a bug tracker. 2009-07-17 17:58 ` Eric S Fraga @ 2009-07-17 18:35 ` Matthew Lundin 2009-07-17 19:02 ` Eric S Fraga 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Matthew Lundin @ 2009-07-17 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric S Fraga; +Cc: Óscar Fuentes, emacs-orgmode Eric S Fraga <ucecesf@ucl.ac.uk> writes: > At Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:25:11 +0200, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > >> Another nuisance is attached files. This requires an ad-hoc mechanism >> and I'm not sure I want them stored along with the source files. > > Actually, I'm glad you brought this up. Since moving my org files to > be under version control (and boy does that make a difference to my > peace of mind!), Yes. I've come to conclude that version control is a *must* for org files, given the possibility of accidentally deleting whole trees. > I don't know how to deal with attachments. > Attachments, for me, are usually ephemeral and usually types of > documents I don't particularly like to deal with (typically MS Word or > PPT). I believe org-attach achieves this end admirably. When you use org-attach to "attach" a document to a headline, it will deposit the file (or, if you prefer, a link to the file) in a location defined by the variable org-attach-directory. The file and the headline are linked via a global id property. You can open the file from the heading to which it is attached by calling org-attach again. http://orgmode.org/manual/Attachments.html Obviously, if these files are ephemeral, you can leave the org-attach-directory outside of your version control system. Best, Matt ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Org-mode as a bug tracker. 2009-07-17 18:35 ` Matthew Lundin @ 2009-07-17 19:02 ` Eric S Fraga 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Eric S Fraga @ 2009-07-17 19:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthew Lundin; +Cc: emacs-orgmode At Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:35:29 -0500, Matthew Lundin wrote: > > > I don't know how to deal with attachments. > > Attachments, for me, are usually ephemeral and usually types of > > documents I don't particularly like to deal with (typically MS Word or > > PPT). > > I believe org-attach achieves this end admirably. When you use > org-attach to "attach" a document to a headline, it will deposit the > file (or, if you prefer, a link to the file) in a location defined by > the variable org-attach-directory. The file and the headline are linked > via a global id property. You can open the file from the heading to > which it is attached by calling org-attach again. > > http://orgmode.org/manual/Attachments.html > > Obviously, if these files are ephemeral, you can leave the > org-attach-directory outside of your version control system. Thanks for your input on this, Matt. That approach (using a directory outside my version control hierarchy) makes sense. It sort of emulates what I'm doing already which is to use explicit links to files. Time to play... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: Org-mode as a bug tracker. 2009-07-17 16:25 ` Óscar Fuentes 2009-07-17 17:58 ` Eric S Fraga @ 2009-07-18 10:46 ` Bastien 2009-07-19 21:12 ` Óscar Fuentes 1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Bastien @ 2009-07-18 10:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Óscar Fuentes; +Cc: emacs-orgmode Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> writes: > Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> writes: > >> Any reasons why this is not a good idea? > > Just remembered that time ago, when the bug tracker for Emacs was > discussed, Bastien proposed to use org-mode for it. Actually I'm glad you bring this up again, as I want to work on this proposal again. There are actually two ideas: (1) use org-mode instead of outline-mode in Emacs internal files etc/TODO and admin/FOR-RELEASE. This is pretty straightforward and not a big change. As a minimal change, it improves the way we can navigate through these files, but it opens new possibilities about adding milestones, tagging tasks, keep track of the email which originated the task, assign them to someone, etc. (2) use org-mode as a collective bug tracker. Let me dwell a bit on the second idea. A good bug tracker for Emacs would let both users and developers easily access (read/write) to a constantly updated bugs database. One way to do this with Org files is the "Worg" way: share Org files over git (or bzr) and let's people contribute to it. However, this is not a good solution for *users*. Even for developers it's not usable: people will have to pull the last version of the bug database to check that they are not working on the same things... too bad. Another solution would be to take the Worg road only for publishing the Org bug database, and take another road for writing stuff into it. I think a clever system combining HTML input and mail interactions could do it: - A HTML form would let users fill a bug report that would be add to the Org bug database; - M-x report-emacs-bug would be sent to a machine able to extract an Org subtree from the email and add it to the Org bug database; - When a developer is taking any action on a bug (revising, closing, etc) he emails the updated version of the task to the system and the system takes care of replace the old entry by the new one. - Whenever X changes an entry assigned to Y, Y receives an email asking for permission about this changes. If yes, then the change is applied to the bug database, if no it isn't. This is the basic workflow. Of course, permissions and other issues could be refined but I think such a system is feasible. > I argued against > because the Emacs bug database would soon fill dozens of megabytes and > this volume does not fit the philosophy of a text-based database. I don't think the size of the database would really be an issue for the system above - but maybe I'm wrong on this. > Another nuisance is attached files. This requires an ad-hoc mechanism > and I'm not sure I want them stored along with the source files. I guess 20MB is because there are many files attached - as Matt mentioned you can attach files *outside* the bug database so this isn't really an issue. Looking forward reading your ideas on the proposed setup above! Thanks, -- Bastien ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Org-mode as a bug tracker. 2009-07-18 10:46 ` Bastien @ 2009-07-19 21:12 ` Óscar Fuentes 2009-07-20 6:18 ` Bastien 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Óscar Fuentes @ 2009-07-19 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-orgmode Bastien <bastienguerry@googlemail.com> writes: >>> Any reasons why this is not a good idea? >> >> Just remembered that time ago, when the bug tracker for Emacs was >> discussed, Bastien proposed to use org-mode for it. > > Actually I'm glad you bring this up again, as I want to work on this > proposal again. > > There are actually two ideas: > > (1) use org-mode instead of outline-mode in Emacs internal files > etc/TODO and admin/FOR-RELEASE. This is pretty straightforward > and not a big change. As a minimal change, it improves the way we > can navigate through these files, but it opens new possibilities > about adding milestones, tagging tasks, keep track of the email > which originated the task, assign them to someone, etc. Using org-mode instead of outline-mode is a no-brainer. The only incovenient is org's complexity. A basic but effective use of org is straightforward but its extensive documentation may seem daunting for the occasional user. Maybe a paragraph or two at the beginning of the file explaining what's required for adding entries and doing simple queries would help those developers who don't know nor plan to use org for other uses. > (2) use org-mode as a collective bug tracker. > > Let me dwell a bit on the second idea. > > A good bug tracker for Emacs would let both users and developers easily > access (read/write) to a constantly updated bugs database. > > One way to do this with Org files is the "Worg" way: share Org files > over git (or bzr) and let's people contribute to it. However, this is > not a good solution for *users*. Even for developers it's not usable: > people will have to pull the last version of the bug database to check > that they are not working on the same things... too bad. > > Another solution would be to take the Worg road only for publishing the > Org bug database, and take another road for writing stuff into it. I > think a clever system combining HTML input and mail interactions could > do it: > > - A HTML form would let users fill a bug report that would be add to > the Org bug database; > > - M-x report-emacs-bug would be sent to a machine able to extract an > Org subtree from the email and add it to the Org bug database; > > - When a developer is taking any action on a bug (revising, closing, > etc) he emails the updated version of the task to the system and the > system takes care of replace the old entry by the new one. > > - Whenever X changes an entry assigned to Y, Y receives an email > asking for permission about this changes. If yes, then the change > is applied to the bug database, if no it isn't. > > This is the basic workflow. Of course, permissions and other issues > could be refined but I think such a system is feasible. IMAO this setup is more complex and fragile than a conventional bug tracker. The idea may seem appealing at first for a group of veteran emacs users (those who insist on managing the bug database via e-mail because they refuse to use a web browser, for instance) but I'm far from convinced about its effectiveness. >> I argued against because the Emacs bug database would soon fill >> dozens of megabytes and this volume does not fit the philosophy of a >> text-based database. > > I don't think the size of the database would really be an issue for the > system above - but maybe I'm wrong on this. I'm afraid you are. Lots of emacs bug reports comprises hundreds of lines of stack dumps, plus e-mail discussions with lots of quoted text, etc. Org is great for notes, but is it practical for containing tens of thousands of bug reports, some of them made of thousands of lines? And you don't control what's on a bug report, they usually contain all sorts of text constructs and random characters. How well it would deal with bug reports about org's itself, containing excerpts from other org files? Wouldn't this confuse org? >> Another nuisance is attached files. This requires an ad-hoc mechanism >> and I'm not sure I want them stored along with the source files. > > I guess 20MB is because there are many files attached - as Matt > mentioned you can attach files *outside* the bug database so this > isn't really an issue. Nope, the 20MB is the bugs' text alone. But attached files belong to the tickets and supposedly provide key information, so you can wipe them away to a place where they are not distributed along with the bug database. I think org as a bug tracker may work very well for individual developers or for small groups, but not for open big projects such as emacs. -- Óscar ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: Org-mode as a bug tracker. 2009-07-19 21:12 ` Óscar Fuentes @ 2009-07-20 6:18 ` Bastien 2009-07-20 14:15 ` JBash 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Bastien @ 2009-07-20 6:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Óscar Fuentes; +Cc: emacs-orgmode Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> writes: > Using org-mode instead of outline-mode is a no-brainer. The only > incovenient is org's complexity. A basic but effective use of org is > straightforward but its extensive documentation may seem daunting for > the occasional user. Maybe a paragraph or two at the beginning of the > file explaining what's required for adding entries and doing simple > queries would help those developers who don't know nor plan to use org > for other uses. I will write a page on Worg about this. >> This is the basic workflow. Of course, permissions and other issues >> could be refined but I think such a system is feasible. > > IMAO this setup is more complex and fragile than a conventional bug > tracker. The idea may seem appealing at first for a group of veteran > emacs users (those who insist on managing the bug database via e-mail > because they refuse to use a web browser, for instance) but I'm far from > convinced about its effectiveness. Aside from the scalability of Org wrt to big bug databases, I'm myself only 50% convinced it's an effective setup. I'd be glad to work on the remaining 50%. >> I don't think the size of the database would really be an issue for the >> system above - but maybe I'm wrong on this. > > I'm afraid you are. Lots of emacs bug reports comprises hundreds of > lines of stack dumps, plus e-mail discussions with lots of quoted text, > etc. Org is great for notes, but is it practical for containing tens of > thousands of bug reports, some of them made of thousands of lines? And > you don't control what's on a bug report, they usually contain all sorts > of text constructs and random characters. How well it would deal with > bug reports about org's itself, containing excerpts from other org > files? Wouldn't this confuse org? I don't know. Org is certainly not written for that purpose. But cannot the dumps and discussions but attached as files? If so, the Org database would only need links to these files, not the full bug entry. > Nope, the 20MB is the bugs' text alone. Gee... > But attached files belong to the > tickets and supposedly provide key information, so you can wipe them > away to a place where they are not distributed along with the bug > database. Yes. > I think org as a bug tracker may work very well for individual > developers or for small groups, but not for open big projects such as > emacs. Yes. In the setup I described in the previous email, no human directly write anything in an Org buffer, everything is taken care of by scripts. Which is kinda sick, 'cause Org is for humans. But still, I will continue to brainstorm on this, because if Org is so useful for individual bug databases, there should be a clever and useful way to *share* these individual databases and have a collective tool. -- Bastien ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: Org-mode as a bug tracker. 2009-07-20 6:18 ` Bastien @ 2009-07-20 14:15 ` JBash 2009-07-20 14:35 ` Óscar Fuentes 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: JBash @ 2009-07-20 14:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bastien; +Cc: Óscar Fuentes, emacs-orgmode [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3537 bytes --] Not sure if this helps, and I don't know the details or the mechanism, but I believe that John Wiegley uses org-mode as a bug tracking tool for his ledger app. http://wiki.github.com/jwiegley/ledger On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Bastien <bastienguerry@googlemail.com>wrote: > Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> writes: > > > Using org-mode instead of outline-mode is a no-brainer. The only > > incovenient is org's complexity. A basic but effective use of org is > > straightforward but its extensive documentation may seem daunting for > > the occasional user. Maybe a paragraph or two at the beginning of the > > file explaining what's required for adding entries and doing simple > > queries would help those developers who don't know nor plan to use org > > for other uses. > > I will write a page on Worg about this. > > >> This is the basic workflow. Of course, permissions and other issues > >> could be refined but I think such a system is feasible. > > > > IMAO this setup is more complex and fragile than a conventional bug > > tracker. The idea may seem appealing at first for a group of veteran > > emacs users (those who insist on managing the bug database via e-mail > > because they refuse to use a web browser, for instance) but I'm far from > > convinced about its effectiveness. > > Aside from the scalability of Org wrt to big bug databases, I'm myself > only 50% convinced it's an effective setup. I'd be glad to work on the > remaining 50%. > > >> I don't think the size of the database would really be an issue for the > >> system above - but maybe I'm wrong on this. > > > > I'm afraid you are. Lots of emacs bug reports comprises hundreds of > > lines of stack dumps, plus e-mail discussions with lots of quoted text, > > etc. Org is great for notes, but is it practical for containing tens of > > thousands of bug reports, some of them made of thousands of lines? And > > you don't control what's on a bug report, they usually contain all sorts > > of text constructs and random characters. How well it would deal with > > bug reports about org's itself, containing excerpts from other org > > files? Wouldn't this confuse org? > > I don't know. Org is certainly not written for that purpose. But > cannot the dumps and discussions but attached as files? If so, the > Org database would only need links to these files, not the full bug > entry. > > > Nope, the 20MB is the bugs' text alone. > > Gee... > > > But attached files belong to the > > tickets and supposedly provide key information, so you can wipe them > > away to a place where they are not distributed along with the bug > > database. > > Yes. > > > I think org as a bug tracker may work very well for individual > > developers or for small groups, but not for open big projects such as > > emacs. > > Yes. In the setup I described in the previous email, no human directly > write anything in an Org buffer, everything is taken care of by scripts. > Which is kinda sick, 'cause Org is for humans. > > But still, I will continue to brainstorm on this, because if Org is so > useful for individual bug databases, there should be a clever and useful > way to *share* these individual databases and have a collective tool. > > -- > Bastien > > > _______________________________________________ > Emacs-orgmode mailing list > Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. > Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode > [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4606 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --] _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Org-mode as a bug tracker. 2009-07-20 14:15 ` JBash @ 2009-07-20 14:35 ` Óscar Fuentes 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Óscar Fuentes @ 2009-07-20 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-orgmode JBash <bashveank@gmail.com> writes: > Not sure if this helps, and I don't know the details or the mechanism, but I > believe that John Wiegley uses org-mode as a bug tracking tool for his > ledger app. > > http://wiki.github.com/jwiegley/ledger Yup. It's on the file named TODO of the `planning` git branch. Thanks! -- Óscar ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Org-mode as a bug tracker. 2009-07-17 15:34 Org-mode as a bug tracker Óscar Fuentes 2009-07-17 16:25 ` Óscar Fuentes @ 2009-07-18 10:46 ` Bastien 2009-07-20 23:26 ` OrgmodeOrg-mode " Wes Hardaker 2 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Bastien @ 2009-07-18 10:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Óscar Fuentes; +Cc: emacs-orgmode Hi Oscar, Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> writes: > Right now I'm using Trac (a bug tracker and wiki combo) for bug tracking > and project documentation on my personal projects. > > Looking at org-mode it seems a superb system for a this task, at least > for one-person projects: > > * Plain text. > > * No server required. > > * Can be stored on the same VCS than the source code. > > * Great for working off-line. > > * Features such as time tracking and others that Trac does not support > or does badly with plugins. > > * It's Emacs! Yes, Org-mode matches perfectly the needs for a personal bug tracker. I use Org for all my tasks and software bugs are just a subset of them. Or maybe using Org makes me think of "repair the washing machine" as a bug? In both case, Org greatly helps tracking stuff. > The only downside is the lack of a referenced wiki system: simple links > to revisions (r1010) tickets (#245) etc. I guess simple revisions can be emulated with notes: C-c C-z But revisions themselves are not linkable then. Or a revision can be a new subtree in this task? Then this revision can have its own ID (check org-id.el in contrib/) and you can link to the revision. But that's perhaps too much structure for bug. > Any reasons why this is not a good idea? Not a single one :) > Any example of a similar org-mode usage? Maybe have a look at org-mode/ORGWEBPAGE/todo.org - but I guess Carsten has some other secret todo.org :) -- Bastien ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: OrgmodeOrg-mode as a bug tracker. 2009-07-17 15:34 Org-mode as a bug tracker Óscar Fuentes 2009-07-17 16:25 ` Óscar Fuentes 2009-07-18 10:46 ` Bastien @ 2009-07-20 23:26 ` Wes Hardaker 2009-07-20 23:48 ` Óscar Fuentes 2 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Wes Hardaker @ 2009-07-20 23:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Óscar Fuentes; +Cc: emacs-orgmode >>>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:34:13 +0200, Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> said: o> The only downside is the lack of a referenced wiki system: simple links o> to revisions (r1010) tickets (#245) etc. You can actually get around this somewhat if you're linking to, say, a svn web server. I do this using something like this: (setq org-link-abbrev-alist '( ("nsb" . "http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&group_id=12694&atid=112694&aid=%s"))) Thus any links like [[nsb:1234]] will link to the right web page for bug #1234 in the Net-SNMP bug database. SVN repo pointers, etc, can be done just as easily. -- \ Wes Hardaker http://pontifications.hardakers.net / \_____ "In the bathtub of history the truth is harder to hold than ________/ \_______ the soap, and much more difficult to find." _______/ \_________ -- Terry Pratchett ______________/ \__________________/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: OrgmodeOrg-mode as a bug tracker. 2009-07-20 23:26 ` OrgmodeOrg-mode " Wes Hardaker @ 2009-07-20 23:48 ` Óscar Fuentes 2009-07-21 6:01 ` Bastien 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Óscar Fuentes @ 2009-07-20 23:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-orgmode Wes Hardaker <wjhns209@hardakers.net> writes: > o> The only downside is the lack of a referenced wiki system: simple links > o> to revisions (r1010) tickets (#245) etc. > > You can actually get around this somewhat if you're linking to, say, a > svn web server. I do this using something like this: > > (setq org-link-abbrev-alist > '( > ("nsb" > . "http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&group_id=12694&atid=112694&aid=%s"))) > > Thus any links like [[nsb:1234]] will link to the right web page for bug > #1234 in the Net-SNMP bug database. SVN repo pointers, etc, can be done > just as easily. I was thinking along this lines for implementing links to subversion revisions. However, links to bugs reports are not so easy, because you must explicitly assign a unique id to each TODO. org-id.el is not very human-friendly as it generates long ids. I guess it is possible to fix this with some lisp customizations. Once the automatic generation and insertion of a simple (counter-based) unique id for each new TODO is achieved, linking to bugs becomes easy using the mechanism you mentioned above. -- Óscar ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: OrgmodeOrg-mode as a bug tracker. 2009-07-20 23:48 ` Óscar Fuentes @ 2009-07-21 6:01 ` Bastien 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Bastien @ 2009-07-21 6:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Óscar Fuentes; +Cc: emacs-orgmode Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> writes: > Wes Hardaker <wjhns209@hardakers.net> writes: > >> o> The only downside is the lack of a referenced wiki system: simple links >> o> to revisions (r1010) tickets (#245) etc. >> >> You can actually get around this somewhat if you're linking to, say, a >> svn web server. I do this using something like this: >> >> (setq org-link-abbrev-alist >> '( >> ("nsb" >> . "http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&group_id=12694&atid=112694&aid=%s"))) >> >> Thus any links like [[nsb:1234]] will link to the right web page for bug >> #1234 in the Net-SNMP bug database. SVN repo pointers, etc, can be done >> just as easily. More generally, using Org as a front-end for other bug tracking online tools looks more actionnable than using it as a back-end. > I was thinking along this lines for implementing links to subversion > revisions. However, links to bugs reports are not so easy, because you > must explicitly assign a unique id to each TODO. org-id.el is not very > human-friendly as it generates long ids. Aren't those ids always hidden, either within a link or within a drawer? > I guess it is possible to fix this with some lisp customizations. Once > the automatic generation and insertion of a simple (counter-based) > unique id for each new TODO is achieved, linking to bugs becomes easy > using the mechanism you mentioned above. I think it's already the case. -- Bastien ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-07-21 6:11 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2009-07-17 15:34 Org-mode as a bug tracker Óscar Fuentes 2009-07-17 16:25 ` Óscar Fuentes 2009-07-17 17:58 ` Eric S Fraga 2009-07-17 18:35 ` Matthew Lundin 2009-07-17 19:02 ` Eric S Fraga 2009-07-18 10:46 ` Bastien 2009-07-19 21:12 ` Óscar Fuentes 2009-07-20 6:18 ` Bastien 2009-07-20 14:15 ` JBash 2009-07-20 14:35 ` Óscar Fuentes 2009-07-18 10:46 ` Bastien 2009-07-20 23:26 ` OrgmodeOrg-mode " Wes Hardaker 2009-07-20 23:48 ` Óscar Fuentes 2009-07-21 6:01 ` Bastien
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).