On Aug 9, 2012, at 10:38 AM, Chris Hostetter wrote: > : Should I also have opened a JIRA ticket? I'm lazy. I'd prefer not to. I > : referenced the RT ticket in my svn commit message, because as I saw it, that > : constituted an adequate audit trail considering there was little question > of IP > : conflict. Was that adequate? I dunno. Hence, this thread.
Seems adequate to me. > I don't follow the lucy commit list so i'm not familar with the specifics > of this example, but... > > personally i think any "bug" should be filed in jira, regardless of how > trivial it is to fix, because that way there is a clear record of it that > is easy to see if someone else gets burned by the same bug and goes > seraching in the "official" place to seach for bugs to see if it's already > been reported/fixed. Well, we have version control, too. That ought to be sufficient for a simple fix such as this. > Filing a Jira for all bugs seems particularly important for Lucy since the > CHANGES.txt in the releases is built from the Jira changelog feature -- so > if a bug fix isn't in Jira, it doesn't even get listed in the CHANGES.txt, > so users never know that you fixed it (or to be wary of that bug in older > versions if they choose not to upgrade, or to sanity check that the fix > doesn't have side affects that burn them in some particular use case, > etc....) Yeah, if it is important enough to mention in Changes, it ought to be in Jira for as long as Changes is generated from Jira. My humble $0.02 is: Accept reports and patches from *anywhere*, always be friendly to contributors, minimize the hoops they have to jump through. If it’s important to the project that everything be added to Jira, then it should be *our* responsibility to do that (and reference the Jira ticket in response to the OP in their ticket system). Best, David
