> > In any case, this is why we have reviewers: so they can teach newcomers > what > the policies are and how we do things. There will never be documentation > for > every single little thing, there's a lot that is latent knowledge. >
Why would they teach if the newcomers knew after reading the documentation? The point of documentation is to share the knowledge (i.e. like this one), isn't it? If nobody does, I will do this later then. > As I said, it's the "Task-number" that triggers the completion in the > Gerrit > UI. > How will the "Task-number" entry know whether to jump to Gerrit or Jira? We need a distinction here because they are separate sources for information. > But that doesn't explain what QTREVIEW is, why it's misspelt and and why we > don't need the same for other classes. > It is not misspelt. I intentionally wrote QT_REVIEW_ according to the QT_BUG_ schema. Like I wrote, it could be a better like QTCODEREVIEW or so. I was just presenting the idea. > > People now keep pasting the hard coded link in such situations as far > as I > > see which is not clickable right away and hard coded. It would be nice > if I > > could write something like "Review-number: QTREVIEW-31541" or something > > like that. > > Paste the permalink of the Gerrit review or the Change-Id, or the bug ID > with > "Task-number: " prepended, or a link to the mailing list archives. It > doesn't > need to be a link anyway, just an identifier we can look up. > Except that, it would be nice to have the entry clickable which redirects instantly to the gerrit change without any further investigation. Like I said, just like how it happens in case the QTBUG entry. Laszlo
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
