On 14 Jan 2011, at 17:31, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 01/13/2011 03:49 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
I realise there are changes where it sometimes doesn't seem
necessary
to make a JIRA (e.g. add a comment, correct a typo, update a readme,
etc) and I will admit to doing a commit without one on occasion, but
that is the vast minority of the time and should not be the norm for
anyone. Ideally we should just have a JIRA for everything, but we
are
so bad at this as a community I would actually say we should have a
commit hook put in place to enforce presence of a JIRA tag in commit
logs to encourage the behaviour.
I would rather start complaining about specific commits which
should have had a Jira referenced and do not - the 'name and
shame' approach!
Automated enforcement of this sort can sometimes enforce the
letter of the law without really doing much for its spirit.
Ay, marry, is't: But to my mind, though I am native here and to the
manner born, it is a custom more honour'd in the breach than the
observance.
-- Hamlet, Act I, Scene IV
However,
We could simply raise a few standardised JIRAs every time we release,
called 'Miscellaneous [Component] changes' and log all unallocated
commits with one of those JIRA numbers. Then, come release time, all
these changes are collated in one place for review, and we can close
them as 'Fixed in [version]'. This way the commit-hook can be
enforced, and at the very least we have some generic placeholders for
automatic release-note generation. We would need to publish these
QPID-xxxx numbers to the list as a new part of the release process,
of course.
Andrew.
--
-- andrew d kennedy ? do not fold, bend, spindle, or mutilate ;
-- http://grkvlt.blogspot.com/ ? edinburgh : +44 7582 293 255 ;
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
