From IRC messages.. may later format into a nicer display (time is limited):

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
* master-web is public
* 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?

> 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]]