Kevan, Jason, Blevins, et al,
Thanks for your constructive feedback and comments. You are right. The
issue is not about the type of changes Jason mentioned. Those don't
warrant a JIRA. Jason recently strenghtened the protection and privacy
on some methods. It would be ridiculous to expect him to file a JIRA
for it. Moreover, I come from a work culture where EVERY single change
had to go thro' a JIRA and I have bitched, moaned and complained
about it. So this to me is manna.
I am more concerned about having a ready link between a change and
it's relevant discussion. How do we maintain it ? Would people have to
take the trouble of googling the archives to search for the relevant
discussion ? This is kinda tangential to the discussion on the other
thread about having javadocs.
Going thro' subversion history doesn't necessarily provide this link.
Not all changes have the required, appropriate comments.
Next, are there any guidelines about when to create JIRAs and when
one can get by without ?
Thanx
Prasad
On Sep 19, 2006, at 6:57 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> There are always small changes that are not directly tied to a
> specific JIRA issue. My point is that by making it a requirement
> to have a JIRA issue that people will end up creating more issues
> than we really nee (or want).
>
> I have made a lot of small changes to the build which fit into this
> category. Some clean up also fits into that category. Say, adding
> or fixing javadocs, or adding TODO comments, etc... all things
> which probably don't have a JIRA issue and it would be a PITA to
> force folks to go an make one. That is way to artificial and
> pointless.
I agree with Jason. There are instances (and Jason's mentioned a few)
where generating a Jira ends up producing noise to the community and
extra work for the developer, without delivering any additional
benefit to the community.
Prasad,
Perhaps you can be a little more explicit about the problem and we
can work our way to a solution?
I doubt that the types of changes referenced by Jason are the types
of changes that you're seeing a problem with... Perhaps you can
discuss the problem a bit more specifically? Are you seeing instances
where larger functional enhancements/commits aren't referencing Jira/
discussion?
I'm guessing that you are seeing commits for significant functional
enhancements for which a Jira was not created (and thus not
referenced in the commit message). If this is your issue, then I
think we can find a reasonable solution which the community will
agree with...
--kevan
