As I recently indicated on the QIP discussion thread, I think we need to make better use of JIRA to benefit both our users and ourselves. Too many of our commits have no JIRA listed, and in many cases this is not just failure to include the reference but a failure to even create a JIRA at all. In the former case, this means people can't link a JIRA to its changes and often makes it impossible for the Release Manager to tidy up (not that they should have to, really...) JIRAs that have not been updated properly, and in the latter case it means people have no way of determining a change was even made without viewing the commit logs for themselves (and having some idea what the change actually means).
The shiny new JIRA version now in use at the ASF has a nice page for viewing commits to a project and what JIRA they reference etc, including only those for a particular release version. It would be more useful if it was actually able to include most of our commits; currently it isn't able to because it needs a JIRA reference in the commit log (at the time of the commit) in order to work. You can see it in [in]action at: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID#selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.pl ugin.ext.subversion%3Asubversion-project-tab I suggested that we are so bad at this that we need a commit hook to enforce inclusion of JIRA tags in our commit logs. Gordon thought that perhaps a name-and-shame approach would work better to enforce the spirit rather than the letter of the law. I present our last 3 months of commits in a table, coloured green or red depending on whether they included a JIRA reference or not: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/qpid/Commit+List To summarise the results here, they were: With JIRA 95, Without JIRA: 207. That is, 68.5% of our commits either didn't reference their JIRA in the commit log or actually had no JIRA at all. Then there were the few cases where it was deemed ok to include only another projects issue tracking reference; including additional references is fine, but I think that it's safe to say that if a change warrants including any issue tracking reference then it should at least include a Qpid one, don't you? I realise there are trivial changes where it sometimes seems unnecessary to make a JIRA (e.g. add a comment, correct a typo, update a readme, etc) and I will hold my hand up to not having done so for things like adding missing licences and updating the website (which is quite visible in the commit list above) but really they should have had one too, and either way that should be the vast minority of the time and not the other way around. I think it should be so infrequent that enforcing 100% inclusion of JIRA commit references really is the way to go here, as the above results are somewhat ridiculous. Robbie. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
