Thanks Benjamin, I agree with this.
On 05/07/2008, at 7:12 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
I disagree on JIRA issues - for making release notes and keeping
track I think it's best to have an issue whenever possible.
Having detailed release notes is surely a good point since it's the
easiest way for users to rate a new release in terms of benefits/
risks when updating. But I guess something like "Improved javadoc"
is not that interesting that it should popup in the release notes,
i.e. Vincent's general distinction between "Minor changes" and
"Larger changes" makes sense.
However, I feel the statement
jira.apt
* <<Minor changes>>, like bug fixes
is misleading. Of course there a "bug fixes" like correcting typos
that can go in without jiras but in general I call a bug fix a major
change that is going to impact users ("Jesus, they got that working,
great!") ;-)
Hence I propose the following update:
* <<Minor changes>>, like code reformatting, documentation fixes,
etc. that aren't going to impact other users can be committed
without much issue.
* <<Major changes>>, like bug fixes, API changes, significant
refactoring, and pretty much any change of more than 100 lines,
should have a JIRA ticket associated with it, or at least an email
discussion.
Benjamin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
