A forum for technical support discussion related to Fogbugz.
We use FogBugz with Vault integration, which works very well when developers actually bother to use it.
In an attempt to increase compliance, we recently turned on the option in the Vault to require a case number to check in code.
The question then becomes how to handle small, repetitive tasks? Is it wise to require developers to create a case for each check-in, no matter how small? Or should we create a dummy catch-all case, and allow the developers to use this case number?
Anyone have any experience with this?
That's the trade off :)
Personally I would suggest not using that feature as it just makes things more cumbersome as you've noticed.
Anything that makes software harder to use when you couldn't be bothered starts to be annoying and makes you less likely to use it (meaning, devs in this case will start to wait longer before they do checkins, leaving source on their disk instead of in the repository).
It's the same with bug tracking and why we don't require you to do anything to create a bug. Lots of people want the title to be required, but the truth is, it takes a second to fix the title if someone forgot it, and if they consistently forget then they need to alter their behavior. It's better to have a bug IN the system with no title, than to have one person ever say, "Oh don't enter it in the system. It's just a pain". Sometimes you really don't care if there's a title (just like in email).
Putting up restrictions in the software causes people to work around them. Instead you could consider speaking to the developers who aren't connecting their checkins to their cases. Maybe in the cases that they aren't, its not really necessary for them to do so?
I can hardly pass-up this opportunity to point out (again) that I think the problem with the bug titles lies not with their lack of compulsion but with the layout of the page.
This leaves the title (and the category combos) stranded outside the obvious 'form-to-be-filled-in'.
Perhaps Joel writes about usable design in the same spirit that the leaders of bust companies set up as management consultants..? :-)
Friday, January 27, 2006
Instead of forcing a developer to add a case number, perhaps alert them when one is not included. Countless times I have entered a change summary and realized I didn't include the case number immediately after clicking check-in. My goal is to include a case number for all relavent checkins - sometimes it simply slips my mind. An alert box would remind a developer to include case numbers for the checkins that should have them, but would still allow them to check-in files that don't need them.
I think your suggestion is better targeted to SourceGear themselves, Fog Creek don't have any control over how Vault or any other source control system works.
Ian M. Jones (CaseDetective)
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.Other recent topics