On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I largely agree with Rajith as shown by my commit history, there are > some changes I dont think warrant a JIRA such as random litle README > or website changes (however, larger documentation changes should > generally be associated with a JIRA because surely they are > documenting something that was implemented or fixed). > Agreed ! Some of the documentation changes are prompted by bug fixes or new features being added. In such cases it's best to include the svn commit for doc changes under the original JIRA created for the bug or new feature. As a group we have been historically bad when it comes to keeping our docs in sync with the code. (All though separate discussion, I think Release managers should not allow a JIRA to be marked resolved if they feel it needs documentation updates.) I think we need to have a commit hook that displays a friendly message reminding folks to include a JIRA number and update the docs if necessary. That IMO is better than one that blocks a commit bcos there is no JIRA in the commit log. When people keep seeing the same message every time they commit, it will eventually sink in :) Rajith. > The problem defining where that line is and then not crossing it; > results suggest we have proven absolutely incapable of doing that as a > group so far. Also, as mentioned there are tools such as the JIRA > commit list that require a JIRA tag in order to work at all; it would > be good for everything to be visible there. > > There should be a minimal amount of cases that would be warranted to > forego a JIRA, to the extent that id rather just enforce 100% JIRA > creation to stop there being any room for doubt or getting lazy. They > dont always have to be new JIRAs, as Andrew suggested some of them > could be short term umbrella JIRAs, eg 'Release preperation readme > cleanup' etc. It doesnt take long to create a short but descriptive > titled JIRA. > > Robbie > > On 7 February 2011 16:55, Rajith Attapattu <rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Jonathan Robie > > <jonathan.ro...@redhat.com>wrote: > > > >> I'm also a repeat offender. I'll create the missing JIRAs and do better > >> going forward. > >> > >> Question: I have some commits that I think are quite minor, fixing a > >> README, whitespace, etc. I assume I don't need a JIRA for that kind of > >> thing? > >> > > > > IMO I don't think you need a JIRA for trivial things like that. > > However when you commit code it's best to have a JIRA. > > 95% of the commits done in actual code are either bug fixes or new > features > > or things that sort of sit in btw and I thing we need a JIRA for those. > > The other 5% are probably fixing typos, documentation, cleaning up etc.. > can > > probably go in without a JIRA. > > > > If you are fixing a bug, then even if it's just a one line commit, it's > > really important to create a JIRA. > > Also updating those JIRA's with release info is very important as well. > > If not we really don't know what we fixed in each release. > > > > > > > >> > >> Jonathan > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > >> Project: http://qpid.apache.org > >> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Rajith Attapattu > > Red Hat > > http://rajith.2rlabs.com/ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > > -- Regards, Rajith Attapattu Red Hat http://rajith.2rlabs.com/
