please, let's put this conversation in the right context ... beware of thread subject
;) On 3/18/13, Gary Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18/03/13 10:55, Andrej Golcov wrote: >> I agree with Gary and just want to add my opinion where I found usage of >> issue tracker useful during BH development. >> >> BH project is quite young and often commits include a lot of code and it >> can be hard to follow in-code TODOs for other developers. In such case, >> adding a ticket with TODO task is more obvious to me. Using tickets for >> planning of new features is also looks more convenient to me >> >> IMHO, where we can avoid unnecessary overhead is not using issue tracker >> for small-to-medium obvious changes. IOW, if we see obvious problem or >> improvement - just fix it and don't spend time for creating-closing >> tickets. That also means that not all commit messages should contain >> #ticket number. >> >> Cheers, Andrej > > Well, I don't think I want to see a particular distinction between small > changes and larger (sets of) changes. I would argue that it is unlikely > for anyone to be spending all their time doing lots of small commits in > disparate areas of the code with no relationship between them over > extended periods. Where changes are related, a single ticket could be > raised to cover many such changes. Otherwise, for one-offs, the > associated overhead should not really be a significant part of a > committer's overall time. > > Cheers, > Gary > -- Regards, Olemis. Apache™ Bloodhound contributor http://issues.apache.org/bloodhound Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/ Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/ Featured article:
