Hi C. Michael,
As a developer of non-svn stuff and a user of svn, not a developer of
svn, I support your notion that PATCH doesn't have any meaning.
I might also make the same comment about TASK. But that's another
issue for another day.
Craig
On May 7, 2010, at 9:39 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
I've never been a fan of the PATCH issue type present in our
tracker. While
the other issue types (TASK, DEFECT, ENHANCEMENT, FEATURE) tell you
something about the problem that needs a-fixin', PATCH tells you
only that
someone has proposed some code change. But for what?
So in the ViewVC project I switched do a slightly different method for
tracking patches, which goes as follows:
- never ever use the PATCH issue type. Instead, use the type
appropriate
for what the patch proposes to change about the code. Is it
fixing a
DEFECT? Adding a new FEATURE? etc.
- for issues that have a patch associated with them, record a "patch"
keyword. This still allows you to query "all issues with patches"
just as easily as querying issue_type=PATCH, and does so (again)
without losing that valuable information about the real problem.
I'd like to move to this methodology in our own tracker. Like, today.
Because the changes are reversible, I'll probably just go for it
later this
afternoon, after seeking some favor in IRC and after popping off
this email.
And of course, I'll update any related docs we may have on the
website (for
the public, or Patch Manager instructions, etc.).
Anybody object?
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On
Demand
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
