On 04/30/2013 10:32 AM, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: > I didn't know it got marked automatically. What makes it marked, the > "issue-#"?
Yes > Would e.g. fix-dolfin-issue-# work? To be honest, I do not know. I pushed such branch to instant and the dolfin issue was not marked fixed, but that is probably as expected. Also when pushing fixes to issues in other repositories one would probably not want automatically marking, as it would probably try to mark issue in the present repo, which in this case would be wrong. Johan > Martin > > On 30 April 2013 10:19, Johan Hake <[email protected]> wrote: >> I still think it is a good idea. But this naming convention seems to >> override the automatic fixing issue system at bitbucket. One need to >> manually mark an issue as fixed, compared to before when it got marked >> fixed automatically. >> >> Johan >> >> On 04/30/2013 10:04 AM, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: >>> Hi, >>> I suggested we name bugfix branches "fix-issue-#", and some have >>> already started doing this. >>> >>> However, the branch name "fix-issue-#" is ambiguous since the issue # >>> is project-specific and the fix may touch multiple projects. >>> >>> Since related branches should preferably share name across projects, I >>> suggest using "fix-<project>-#" instead. >>> >>> In particular, there are now branches ffc/fix-issue-2 and >>> instant/fix-issue-2, which are not related, but just looking at the >>> names they could be related to the same issue. These would then be >>> called "fix-ffc-2" and "fix-instant-2" respectively, removing >>> ambiguity. >>> >>> Martin >>> _______________________________________________ >>> fenics mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics >>> >> _______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
