I think we should encourage people to follow this pattern, but not making this obligatory.
I may be wrong, but I feel that sometimes we use `TODO`s as food for thought, not for something that should or will necessarily be implemented soon. A `TODO` may provide additional context to the implementation from the perspective, how the code or related feature may evolve in the future. However, that original vision may change over time, so it's not always reasonable to create a ticket. On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Kapil Arya <ka...@mesosphere.io> wrote: > Hi Ben, > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Benjamin Mahler < > benjamin.mah...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Kapil would you mind clarifying what is being proposed here? Folks are > > already free to include a reference to a ticket when writing a comment > or a > > TODO, so is the suggestion here to require it for TODOs? Or to add a > syntax > > for this? If it's the latter, what does the syntax achieve? > > > > The proposal is two fold: > > A. Make it mandatory to include a JIRA ticket number with the TODO. > > B. Add a syntax for this and for that we need some consensus. I proposed > two options in the initial email: > 1. TODO(<REPORTER>:MESOS-XXX) > 2. TODO(MESOS-XXX) > > I personally prefer the second option, since the `REPORTER' is already > covered as part of the Jira ticket. > > Kapil > > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Klaus Ma <klaus1982...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > +1, JIRA will include more discussion and we can close it when it has > > been > > > improved. > > > > > > ---- > > > Da (Klaus), Ma (马达) | PMP® | Advisory Software Engineer > > > Platform Symphony/DCOS Development & Support, STG, IBM GCG > > > +86-10-8245 4084 | klaus1982...@gmail.com | http://k82.me > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Alexander Rojas < > > alexan...@mesosphere.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > This also provides a way of removing TODO’s since they are traceable. > > If > > > > you look in the code, there are TODO’s which are no relevant anymore > or > > > > probably cannot be understood from their actual context. > > > > > > > > > On 08 Nov 2015, at 05:50, Kapil Arya <ka...@mesosphere.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > I wanted to bring up a style issue related to the TODO tag in > > > comments. I > > > > > have filed a Jira ticket ( > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3850) > > > > > with the following description: > > > > > > > > > > Currently, we have a TODO(<username-of-original-author>) tags to > note > > > > stuff > > > > > has "should be"/"has to be" done in future. While this provides us > > with > > > > > some notion of accounting, it's not enough. > > > > > > > > > > The author listed in the TODO comment should be considered the > > > > "Reporter", > > > > > but not necessarily the "Assignee". Further, since the stuff > "should > > > > > be"/"has to be" done, why not have a Jira issue tracking it? > > > > > > > > > > We can use TODO(MESOS-XXX) or TODO(<Reporter>:MESOS-XXX) or > something > > > > > similar. Finally, we might wan to consider adding this to the style > > > guide > > > > > to make it a soft/hard requirement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any opinions/suggestions on this one? > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Kapil > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
