Based on some off-line discussions, as well as this thread, I'm buying into the idea that all changes should follow the same rules. It's simpler that way and the additional overhead of crafting a JIRA ticket is minimal, really. [I'm assuming we won't run out of JIRA numbers anytime soon...]
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Jens Deppe <[email protected]> wrote: > For things like 'doc typos' we could consider a Jira that remains open for > a specific release or period of development and then gets closed at the end > of that cycle. > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Kenneth Howe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 to Jake’s comment > > > > The number of “special cases” we’re talking about is pretty small > compared > > to the overall number commits. Even for doc typos it’s not a problem to > > submit a JIRA when you see the problem. I’d be inclined to open one JIRA > > for however many typos or minor textual errors I find on a read-through > or > > review of a doc. > > > > Ken > > > > > On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:42 PM, Dave Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I withdraw the re-usable JIRA ticket suggestion - it was semi-facetious > > > anyway. > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Jacob Barrett <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> +1 > > >> > > >> All changes in the repo should have a ticket. > > >> > > >> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:21 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 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
