Okay, this change has been made. Please refrain from using the PATCH issue tracker type from now on. If you have a patch to post to a new tracker item, create the item as a DEFECT or ENHANCEMENT or FEATURE, attach the patch, and add the 'patch' keyword to the issue.
Thanks all! -- With love, and just trying to stay afloat in the issue tracker, C-Mike 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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
