Just wondering, who's using ikiwiki as their bug-tracking system? I'm trying to root out bug-tracking systems that work with GIT and so far like ikiwiki for docs, but haven't yet figured out the best way to make it work for bug-tracking.
+> I know of only a few:
+> * This wiki.
+> * The "awesome" window manager.
+
I suppose having a separate branch for public web stuff w/ the following workflow makes sense:
* Separate master-web and master branches
* cherry-pick changes from master-web into master when they are sane
* regularly merge master -> master-web
+> That's definitely one way to do it. For this wiki, I allow commits
+> directly to master via the web, and sanity check after the fact. Awesome
+> doesn't allow web commits at all.
+
Bug origination point: ... anybody have ideas for this? Create branch at bug origination point and merge into current upstream branches? (I guess this would be where cherry-picking would work best, since the web UI can't do this)
+> Not sure what you mean.
+>> Documentation as to where the bug came from for related branches...
+>> Ex: The bug got located in r30, but really came about r10. Desire is to propagate the bug to all everything after r10.
+
Bug naming: any conventions/ideas on how to standardize? Any suggestions on methods of linking commits to bugs without having to modify the bug in each commit?
--- [[harningt]]
\ No newline at end of file
+> I don't worry about naming, but then I don't refer to the bug urls
+> anywhere, so any names are ok. When I make a commit to fix a bug, I mark
+> the bug done in the same commit, which links things.
+
+-- [[harningt]]