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