Toggl to JIRA

A tiny side project for day to day works, hosted on GitHub.

Basically it’s a tool to import time logs from toggl to JIRA. It reads logs on toggl by toggl REST API, then pushed them to JIRA by some ruby wrappers (soap4r and jira4r) of JIRA SOAP API.

JIRA is heavily used in FreeWheel. In my current group, almost everything I do can be tracked by a JIRA issue. JIRA serves as the todo, report, and bug tracking system here, and keeps everything visible to everyone.

Fortunately we just upgraded JIRA from 3.x to 4.4 so the SOAP API is much better than JIRA 3. This upgrade made it easier to import work log to JIRA because the API is upgraded a lot. If we had JIRA 5, the new JIRA REST API would be an even better option.

I have been trying to track and manage my work time for a while. Most time-tracking tools are designed for works with billable hours, such as freelance programmers or outsourcing workshops. But I think it’s also beneficial to keep time logs for other jobs. I had tried quite a few ways or tools before, none of them worked very well until I found toggle:

  • Directly log on JIRA: In this way you’re “estimating” how much time you spent after finishing a task. What I need is a “timer” to really track it, different and better. Also, it’s easy to forget to log time in JIRA. When a process brings more troubles than tangible benefits, people will tend to forget or ignore it.
  • A very simple OSX dashboard widget I can’t remember its name. It’s too simple. Features like idle detection or exporting logs are still necessary for me.
  • Harvest. A very powerful one. I used it on iPhone for a while, but found it didn’t work very well because I often forgot to stop/switch timer. “Idle detection” is actually more crucial than it looks. And Harvest is only free for 30 days.
  • JIRA worklog assistant. It seems really nice at first: seamless integration with JIRA, lots of useful features. But soon I found the Mac client crashed so often and had lots of bugs. A tool with such a bad quality won’t be accepted by the team.

Toggl is the best tool I found so far. Its client is very well designed and polished, easy to use and intuitive. It has a REST API  so I can export the log and import to JIRA easily. Toggl also has pretty nice report features, but I still want to keep all records in JIRA for maximum visiblity. And all my needs can be satisfied by Toggl free edition, sweet.

In the last, I want to clarify: the purpose of tracking time allocation is definitely not to measure “how hard you work” or “did you work 8 hours a day”, but to analyze “where are our time spent” and “how long a project/task actually takes”.

Why I Moved Away from Tweetbot

I bought Tweebot and used it for a week. Then I switched back to official twitter app. Here is why.

Tweetbot does have some “personalized” features. It has a dark theme and fancy sound effects, but I don’t really care about these stuff. It has left/right slide gesture, but I found them not intuitive and hard to memorize. The double/triple click is not always detected, so sometimes I have to click lots of times of a tweet and feel myself silly. The customizable tab looks useful, but not for me. What I want is to use a list as a tab, like what I do with Echofon for Mac. But Tweetbot doesn’t support that.

Besides these specious features, Tweetbot has some shortcomings compared to official app. “Discover” is an important part in official app. I check it at times and find it interesting.  Another crucial advantage of official app is speed! When view conversations or tweet detail, official app is obviously faster than Tweetbot.

Tweetbot does have a few delicate features that worth noting, such as the “unread counter”, and “select the last photo from library”. However after all, official app is a much better choice for now.

—–After a year——

Using Tweetbot on iPhone and iPad. Maybe just tired of the look and feel of the official app.

Model of Google Plus

前两天我看到G+上share给某些圈子的状态显示的是“Limited”的时候突然想到,如果在G+上写一条post只share给一个人,是不是这个人就不知道你只share了给他?这有没有可能成为一种非常闷骚的表白(或者类似群发短信骚扰)方式?

但很快我就发现不是这么回事。。第一如果加了一个人名而不是他的圈子,这个人是会收到邮件通知的,当然你可以把他单独丢在一个圈子里。第二G+上那个“Limited”是可以点了展开看都share给谁了的……

由此我稍微思考了一下G+的模型。用G+多一点的估计也都知道了。不过我想明白的时候还是觉得挺有意思的,于是就写一下给不怎么熟悉G+的同学看看。主要是和twitter和facebook的status比较。如果这两个也不熟悉的话那就不用看了。。。

在这几个SNS里面,当你发布一条tweet/post/status的时候,这条消息会推送到一批人的timeline上,也就是说这批人会默认看到你的这条消息。三个SNS在决定这批人的机制上,有本质的差别。(这里先把twitter的list,fb的top news,G+的circle stream,以及block这种较为特殊的功能放下不论。)

  • Twitter:纯由他人决定,谁follow你谁就看到。
  • FB:双方共同决定,friend关系只有互相确认才能成立。
  • G+:双方共同决定,你发布给他,你又在他的圈子里的话,才会推送到他的stream上。
G+和FB都是双方共同决定,但是它们很明显有所区别。区别在于两点:
  1. FB的这个决定是一次性协议,双方确认朋友关系之后一般不会改变了。而G+的这个决定在发布这个方向是细到消息级别的,每条消息的发布群体都会不同;在接收这个方向基本上还是一次性的,圈了人一段时间以后就一般不会随便把他丢出去了。
  2. 发送方和接收方如果只有一方愿意建立联系的话。在FB上这个联系就不会建立,没有任何消息传递,因为朋友关系必须要确认。而在G+里面如果只有发送方愿意,也就是你圈了别人但是别人没圈你,那么消息会出现在接收方的incoming里面;如果只有接收方愿意,也就是别人圈了你但是你发了一条这个人不可见的post,那么跟FB一样,消息不会传递。

Twitter和FB上,一条消息要推送给的人,都是现成的集合,发送者的followers/friends。区别在于FB里这个集合要经过对方确认。而在G+里面,要推送到的集合是发送集合和接收集合的交集。可以认为G+认同FB里面消息传递需要双方确认这一点,但是把这个协议做到了消息级别,并且把发送方确认和接收方确认解耦合了。

twitter的list,FB的top news,G+的circle stream都是为了让接收方能够筛选和分类。twitter和G+的做法是手动的;FB的是自动的,或者说傻瓜化的。这也比较符合这几个平台的气质。

总之,G+的模型要更灵活,更复杂,也更强大。从程序员的角度来看,是令人激动的模型。但是实际的接受程度如何,还有待时间的考验。

新浪微博n大傻

看不到follow的人之间的交互这类产品本身的问题就不提了,就说说用户行为的傻。其中有些行为也是产品本身纵容的。

ID各种傻。三天两头换id的,搞个巨长的id既占字数又让别人压根没法手动@的,带个公司前缀的,用流行语的。完全没有网络时代id就是个人身份的概念,意识还停留在QQ时代,以为随便改昵称呢。

有事没事贴个图。某些专门发垃圾小段子的帐号尤甚。弄个印度英语的笑话非得贴个Raj的图上去,简直就是得了不贴图手会烂的病。

微博只让写140字,于是就弄个巨长的图片写一堆字贴进来,还有专门做这个的服务。就你们中国人聪明,你们真TM太聪明了。

满地的“看到这个十秒钟以内转发有好运”的垃圾帖,还转的不亦乐乎。写的人随地大便,转的人帮忙把大便到处扔。

如果觉得我上面说的是一堆bullshit,那么恭喜你,新浪微博 IS RIGHT FOR YOU!呆在那儿吧千万别出来祸害twitter,G+什么的了。

Google Plus

Google Plus出来有一阵子了,最近处于半封闭状态,在里面的人可以玩,还没进来的人暂时进不来。随便评论一下。

简单的说,Google Plus还不错,不过还没有好到让人要抛弃twitter的地步。

照片分享的界面比较酷,就是那个一堆照片组成的照片墙,每个照片上面还有气泡表示评论条数的页面。和PicasaWeb集成起来也还算方便,不过貌似有些让人迷惑的地方,比如Picasa客户端里面圈的人脸在Plus里面能看到,但是不会给人发tagged的通知,重新在web上圈一遍就会再发通知。

Post + Comment的模式和twitter是个本质的不同。更像新浪微博一点儿,但是还是比新浪那玩意儿要好很多,至少好友之间的评论基本都能看到。我个人更倾向twitter那种更简单清楚的模式,现在这个让人觉得搞不清是怎么运作的,也搞不清好友对好友的评论到底是不是都能看到。

Reshare会导致重复信息这一点明显是个缺点了。但我觉得应该还比较好改吧。

Circle这个东西是刚上手的时候感到的最明显的不同。似乎把事情搞得复杂了许多,估计每个人都有自己的一套分圈方案,然后喜欢折腾的同学一般又会感到各种不合适的地方,再把圈子改来改去的。每次post或者share的时候也要考虑要分享给什么圈子。提供了更多功能,但是让人每次发东西的时候要“想一下”,而且考虑怎么画圈子也够麻烦的。这个功能应该会比较有争议。

Buzz和Plus posts的分隔现在看起来有点奇怪。可能以后会抛弃buzz,然后把Google Reader的share合并到Post这边?

Google Plus现在还没有开放API。一旦开放API,势必会有一些人开始从twitter同步,那样会不会又变成Buzz那样的twitter同步bot乐园?Plus并没有好到让人觉得可以抛弃twitter,更没有好到让人会一个信息手动去发两遍。。

GFW使得Google Plus无法搞掉弱智的新浪微博,可惜。

Btw, Google Plus在twitter上有个非官方id @GooPlusInfo,在想到一个关于Plus的问题的时候我的第一反应是去twitter上问这个id,而且它还答了。。。改变习惯真的挺难的。