I haven't seen any disagreements with this proposal. Can we ask infra to make the change?
-Dan On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Anthony Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > Yep. I went though *lots* of tickets last night and ran into this all > over. > > Anthony > > > On Jan 8, 2016, at 5:22 PM, Jacob Barrett <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > ++1 > > > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:06 PM Dan Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> ++1 > >> > >> We're currently getting lots of silly comments on tickets, Especially > when > >> downmerging from develop to a feature branch. See for example > GEODE-364. It > >> two messages with the same hash. The second one is reporting that the > >> commit was merged to feature/GEODE-715. These extra messages just make > the > >> history of the ticket more confusing. > >> > >> -Dan > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 4:57 PM, William Markito <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> The idea here is that feature branches would not update the JIRA > tickets > >>> anymore, just when they get merged to develop, release or master an > entry > >>> would be added to the JIRA comments. > >>> > >>> If we're ok with that I can go ahead and open that ticket with INFRA. > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> William Markito Oliveira > >>> -- For questions about Apache Geode, please write to > >>> *[email protected] > >>> <[email protected]>* > >>> > >> > >
