Hello Pierre,
Pierre Smits <[email protected]> writes:
> I am at a loss here, are you suggesting to introduce new ticket types,
> and/or sub types?
My intent was not to propose a change besides documenting things in a
“CONTRIBUTING.adoc” file instead of in Confluence. I was trying to make
more explicit the relation between the “Jira ticket types” and “commit
prefixes” as there are currently documented [1][2] and used in practice.
Here are the two lists:
- Commit prefixes :=
Implemented|Improved|Fixed|Completed|Documented|Reverted
- Jira ticket type := Improvement|Bug|New feature|Test|Wish|Task
It is possible that I misinterpreted the current documentation or took
inspiration from “mistakes” made by me or others. So the rules I stated
in my previous mail may not reflect what we are supposed to do.
> As far as JIRA shows there are only:
>
> 1. bug (which can get to final successful resolution 'fixed')
> 2. improvement (which can get to final successful resolution
> 'implemented')
> 3. new feature (which also can get to final successful resolution
> 'implemented')
> 4. task (which can get to final successful resolution 'done')
> 5. test (which can get to a final successful resolution 'executed')
> 6. wish (....)
>
> Refactoring is not a recognised type, and IMO it should not be in. We
> should keep things as simple as possible.
>
> Doesn't the proposed change for bug tickets (being able to classify it as
> 'improved' confuse many? Or am I missing the point?
I agree that our commit guidelines are complex for reasons or benefits
that are not obvious to me, but that's another topic since I didn't
proposed to change them. :-)
I hope this message will help you understand the intent of my previous
one.
Thanks.
[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+commit+message+template
[2]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities
--
Mathieu Lirzin
GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761 070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37
