Hi Camille, On 7 June 2015 at 14:59, Camille Fournier <[email protected]> wrote:
> I personally think all PRs should have an associated JIRA. This is also the > requirement I have on my engineering team at work, and it seems totally > reasonable to me. > Thanks for sharing! Is it with a git pull request work flow though? Take this — small albeit important — pull request for instance: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/32 I think it would be nice to avoid asking casual contributors to file JIRAs for those small patches so the impedance for contributing is reduced. Also, having the committer do the paperwork sounds like too much red tape given that the pull request is already pretty well documented. I at least would be very happy if we could just push those patches by referencing the PR in the comment, instead of a JIRA. I also suspect that eventually we might end up moving to git, so I think there is value in allowing pull requests as a submission mechanism (for some cases?), since it'll make the eventual transition smoother and with less unknowns. -rgs > C > > On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés < > [email protected]> > wrote: > > > Heya, > > > > there's an increasing number of pull requests (PRs) coming through github > > (great! more contributions!). How do we deal with them? Do we need to > file > > a corresponding JIRA before we merge them or can we just reference the > PR? > > > > I rather not tax the contributors with having to file the JIRA, but > taxing > > the committer is also not great.. Thoughts? > > > > > > -rgs > > >
