imo, small typo's could be managed through a single JIRA.
Of course the git commit comment should reflect what was done. Otherwise
it becomes a blanket JIRA that could end up covering a very broad
spectrum of work.
But when even that JIRA should have an EOL. Maybe 1 broad JIRA for
typo's per GA release (if required)?
--Udo
On 1/03/2016 7:33 am, Dave Barnes wrote:
Docs are an important part of the product and over time we plan to migrate
an increasing number of doc sources to the Apache Geode repo (or an allied
repo in the Apache universe). While the workflow for docs often resembles
that for code, there are also other case, such as typo repairs, that IMO
don't really merit individual JIRA tickets.
Would it be in harmony with the Apache Way to open a single JIRA ticket for
'doc typo repair,' keep it open, and re-use it over and over?
That would spare us from creating dozens of identical JIRA tickets that
differ only by number.
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:39 AM, John Blum <[email protected]> wrote:
On Spring projects, and in particular, Spring Data GemFire, we file JIRA
tickets and categorize them as "tasks". However, it not uncommon for a bug
(fix)/enhancement/new-feature to have code/test/documentation changes all
filed under a single JIRA. For example...
SGF-123 - Improve feature X... // includes code changes/tests, maybe doc
changes
SGF-123 - Add additional test for use case/scenario...
SGF-123 - Update documentation...
etc
-John
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer <[email protected]>
wrote:
My opinion is that no work should be done without a JIRA. That way there
is a "documentation" on what the task is and you can measure the outcome
based on the JIRA.
One might think that one could end up in a scenario where we'd end up
creating JIRA's for the sake of creating JIRA's. But in the long run
those
"trivial" tasks become less frequent.
I also thought that there was some unwritten rule that no changes shall
be
made directly in trunk/develop? ;)
On 1/03/2016 6:05 am, Dan Smith wrote:
My opinion is that docs and minor changes to tests or build scripts
don't
need necessarily a JIRA. So I'm not sure we want to enforce this with a
hook.
That said, I definitely see commits in the log that look like product
bug
fixes, and I totally agree those should have ticket #s in the commit.
Jason suggested something that I think might be a good idea - for
changes
that don't need a JIRA, maybe we can put some other tag in that spot.
For
example:
DOCS: Update most occurrences of "Geode" to "Apache Geode".
-Dan
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:34 PM, kareem shabazz <
[email protected]
wrote:
Is it by design that there are no client-side Git hooks to prevent this
sort of thing?
--
Kareem
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM -0800, "Kirk Lund" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Please remember to include the GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in your commit
messages. I'm looking at git log on develop and I can't correlate
several
checkins with any jira tickets.
Thanks,
Kirk
--
-John
503-504-8657
john.blum10101 (skype)
