I meant a way of describing them (changes/proposals) further. Sometimes we have commits only with title, and then the Jira ticket would be a way of documenting that commit. I do prefer the idea of inserting the whole description in the commit body though. [for me] it looks easier to work directly with commits and PRs; as you said, we can generate release notes based on commits directly [and issues on GH]. However, for that, we need to fine-tune our workflow.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 8:40 AM, Will Stevens <wstev...@cloudops.com> wrote: > I am +1 to relaxing the requirement of Jira ticket. > > Rafael, what do you mean when you say "Jira tickets are used to register > changes"? > > I think ever since 4.9 the actual PRs included in the code are the source > of truth for the changes in the actual code (at least from a release notes > perspective). This is why the release notes can show changes that only > have PRs and no Jira ticket. At least my release notes generator is built > that way. I think Rohit has built a similar release notes generator, so I > can't speak to his version... > > *Will Stevens* > Chief Technology Officer > c 514.826.0190 > > <https://goo.gl/NYZ8KK> > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Rafael Weingärtner < > rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Marc, yes Jira tickets are used to register changes. However, what Rohit > > and others (including me) are noticing is that there are certain types of > > changes (minor/bureaucracy) that do not require Jira tickets. The issue > is > > the wording “change”. What consist of a change that is worth mentioning > in > > the release notes? Everything we do in a branch is a change towards a > > release, but not everything is useful for operators/administrators to > see. > > > > I would say that to fix bugs, introduce new features, extend existing > > features, introduce a major change in the code such as that standard > maven > > thing that you did, they all required Jira tickets to track the > discussion > > and facilitate the management. On the other side of the spectrum, we have > > things such as removing dead/unused code, opening a new version (creating > > the upgrade path that we still use for the DB), fix a description in an > API > > method, and so on. Moreover, the excessive use of Jira tickets leads to > > hundreds of Jira tickets that we do not know that status of. We have > quite > > a big number of tickets opened that could be closed. This has been worse; > > we are improving as time goes by. > > > > I would say that to make this more transparent to others (especially > > newcomers), we need to discuss it, then write it down to make it > > transparent the way we are working. > > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:59 AM, Marc-Aurèle Brothier <ma...@exoscale.ch > > > > wrote: > > > > > That's a good idea, because people are more and more used to only > create > > PR > > > on github, and it would be helpful to be more explanatory on the way we > > > work to push changes. I still think we should encourage the use of the > > > github milestone as Rohit did with the 4.11.0 ( > > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/milestone/3?closed=1) to list the > > > changes in the release notes with the help of the labels to tag the PRs > > > instead of relying on the jira ticket (it requires to have another > > login). > > > > > > As far as I can remember, the JIRA tickets are used to list the changes > > of > > > a release, but nothing else. Or am I missing something? > > > > > > Marc-Aurèle > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Rohit Yadav < > rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > All, > > > > > > > > > > > > To make it easier for people to contribute changes and encourage > > > > PR/contributions, should we relax the requirement of a JIRA ticket > for > > > pull > > > > requests that solve trivial/minor issues such as doc bugs, build > fixes > > > etc? > > > > A JIRA ticket may still be necessary for new features and non-trivial > > > > bugfixes or changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Another alternative could be to introduce a CONTRIBUTING.md [1] that > > > > explains the list of expected things to contributors when they send a > > PR > > > > (for example, a jira id, links to fs or other resources, a short > > summary > > > > and long description, test results etc). > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://help.github.com/articles/setting-guidelines- > > > > for-repository-contributors/ > > > > > > > > > > > > - Rohit > > > > > > > > <https://cloudstack.apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com > > > > www.shapeblue.com > > > > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > > > > @shapeblue > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Rafael Weingärtner > > > -- Rafael Weingärtner
