Having no Jira doesn't prevent you explaining clearly what and why you're doing in that change with a proper commit message. It's actually much more convenient when you quickly want to git blame something.
Andor On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:00 PM Jordan Zimmerman <jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: > Even on "trivial" changes having a Jira is very useful. Jira issues show > up in Release Notes and when end users search for problems/solutions. Even > a trivial change may be important to some user of ZooKeeper who might want > to be able to check Jira to see when/why something happened. > > -JZ > > > On Mar 5, 2019, at 4:16 AM, Justin Ling Mao <maoling199210...@sina.com> > wrote: > > > > agree with this from Brian Nixon.--->"For trivial changes like spelling, > whitespace, pruning of import, does itmake sense to have one super/umbrella > ticket with multiple PRs attached" > > ----- Original Message -----From: Brian Nixon <brian.nixon...@gmail.com> > > To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Question on ZK commit/patch policy. > > Date: 2019-03-05 05:54 > > > > I like having JIRAs for all changes because it allows one to track all > the > > changes to given components through the JIRA web interface and it forces > > the contributor to spend some time upfront making sure their change is a > > single coherent unit. > > For trivial changes like spelling, whitespace, pruning of import, does it > > make sense to have one super/umbrella ticket with multiple PRs attached? > > -Brian > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 1:04 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I think that having a JIRA makes it simpler to create release notes and > >> track bugfixes/new features. > >> Trivial changes, like typos are not worth a JIRA. > >> > >> My 2 cents > >> Enrico > >> > >> Il mer 27 feb 2019, 17:57 Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> ha scritto: > >> > >>> Yea, the commit I just did was a single missing space so no big deal. > >>> Jordan's link is to curator current policy which seems very similar to > >>> ours. > >>> > >>> I know what current state is. My question though is what do people > think? > >>> Stay with the current mechanism or move to something else? Staying put > is > >>> fine, I just wanted to review given it's been a while (10+ years!) > since > >> we > >>> last considered this and with github/gitbox and time baselines have > >> changed > >>> considerably over that time. > >>> > >>> Patrick > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:44 AM Andor Molnar > <an...@cloudera.com.invalid > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> There were a few typo/language/cosmetic related patches which were so > >>> small > >>>> that we've decided it's probably not worth the effort to create a Jira > >>> for > >>>> every one of them. > >>>> Similarly, I haven't created Jiras for issues that were found in > >> release > >>>> candidates. > >>>> > >>>> Other than this we generally still don't accept patches without Jira > >>> ticket > >>>> and properly formatted title / commit message. > >>>> > >>>> Andor > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 5:38 PM Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Historically we've only committed changes that have an associated > >> JIRA. > >>>> Now > >>>>> with the move to gitbox we are seeing increased submissions (PRs) > >> that > >>>>> don't include a JIRA - I just committed one and then realized that it > >>>>> didn't include a JIRA (sorry about that!). Given github and the > >> recent > >>>> move > >>>>> to gitbox significantly streamlines the contribution process I'm > >>>> wondering > >>>>> if we should reconsider our process. Any thoughts? Anyone work on > >>> another > >>>>> Apache project that does things differently and has pro/con to share? > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> Patrick > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
