[Bioperl-l] Some trouble getting started

[Fields, Christopher J]

On Apr 16, 2013, at 9:00 AM, Peter Cock <p.j.a.cock at googlemail.com>
 wrote:

> Shall we move this to the cross-project list and/or root-l instead?
> 
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Fields, Christopher J
> <cjfields at illinois.edu> wrote:
>>> That bug is a bit odd - it doesn't seem to have been filed against
>>> any particular project, and has no assignee - and so most likely
>>> no one was ever emailed of the bug's existence. :(
>>> 
>>> Peter
>> 
>> It's an OBF bug; makes sense in light of the common wiki issues
>> across Bio* wikis at the moment.  Looks as if we never decided
>> where such issues end up going or who they would be assigned to.
> 
> My mistake - it wasn't clear from the bug page, but issue 3424 is
> actually filed under the general obf project,
> https://redmine.open-bio.org/issues/3424
> https://redmine.open-bio.org/projects/obf
> 
> I guess we could have had the root-l or open-bio-l lists the
> default assignee for that project (much like how we have the
> biopython-dev mailing list as the default assignee for Biopython
> issues on RedMine).

That sounds fine to me; I anticipate very few of these things cropping up.  We'll need to set up the redmine email on the white list for the group chosen.

>> What is the consensus on using redmine at the moment?  Are the
>> various Bio* (except BioPerl) still using it?  Using Github?  I haven't
>> gone there primarily b/c they don't allow attachments (though that
>> isn't necessarily a bad thing in some cases…).  Reason I ask: I
>> would suggest we set up this project tracker so that it's primarily
>> around web-admin, etc. for OBF, point the email forwards to
>> somewhere useful, populate it with devs from the various groups,
>> etc.  But, if no one but bioperl is using redmine then I don't see
>> the point.
> 
> In the short term improving the OBF project setup on RedMine
> seems a good idea (default assignees and new issue alerts).
> https://redmine.open-bio.org/projects/obf
> 
> BioSQL and BioRuby are also using RedMine according to their
> homepages.
> 
> Biopython is still using RedMine but we're talking about moving
> to the GitHub issue tracker instead (you can use github gists for
> attachments), most likely a manual transfer and triage of all the
> old open issues.

gists don't accept attachments as uploads; it's a copy and paste (so text is fine, but items such as a tarball are not w/o embedding some base64 encoding).  You can do image attachments, though:

https://github.com/blog/1347-issue-attachments

Again, it's not necessarily a bad thing that (most) attachments are not supported, but we do get users sending in scripts, data, etc. so it's worth bringing up.

> According to their homepage, BioJava are already using
> GitHub, I don't know if they turned off filing bugs on Redmine
> (and if not, that would be sensible):
> https://redmine.open-bio.org/projects/biojava

Might be worth checking with them.  

> If we do all move to GitHub issues, then for general OBF
> bug tracking (e.g. wordpress setup, DNS issues) we could
> use something under https://github.com/OBF/ for that.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter

Yes; could probably set up a web-admin repo (or similar) if needed to activate Issues.

chris