[dist-bugs] salutations

[Joey Hess]

Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> Sorry Joey, it's been too long since I read abut all these to remember
> the internal details.
> 
> * Joey Hess <joey at kitenet.net> [080708 19:19]:
> > For example, I assume most of them deal with merging diverged bug states[1]
> > -- do they use close to the same techniques, or wildly different? Any
> > especially good techniques? 
> 
> Merging the bug description will likely result in required user
> intervention.  But changes to the description are more rare than
> comments.  In git-case we decided to avoid merging issues by making
> comment immutable, and form a message tree inspired by email.  In email
> the relationship between comments is defined by references up to the
> parent commit.  This allows us to build threaded comments, and even
> import bug discussions back from a mailing list into the tracker.

Yeah, I reached the same conclusion about comments, and also use
email-like references. In my design I split data into two sets, one
contains state about the bug (open, closed, blocked, which versions
affected, etc), and the other contains stuff like comments and patches.
Only merging the state is tricky.

-- 
see shy jo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://kitenet.net/pipermail/dist-bugs/attachments/20080708/47a73a12/attachment.pgp>