On 13/07/12 14:07, Glenn Adams wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Pascal Sancho <psancho....@gmail.com>wrote: > >> IMHO, using a bugtracker system to list bugfix or changes is a good idea. >> But today, the practice in FOP project is to fill this list directly >> in the cited page. >> We can adopt a new policy here and have a change/bugfix list using >> bugtracker facilities. >> That could be done when we'll migrate to Jira. >> IIUC, Bugzilla entries will be migrated to Jira in the future. >> Waiting this migration, we can today begin to systematically fill a >> new Bugzilla entry, to keep trace in Jira. >> > > Thanks, yes, I agree with this, but I don't think I'm suggesting a new > policy. We have a policy today of telling the community to report bugs in > BZ, then we make fixes and close (or reject) those bug reports, where fixes > change the code base and the bug is closed and a entry made in status.xml.
We’ve never had such a policy. In fact, it happened several times in the past that a bug fix was committed straight away after it had been raised on fop-users. We ask users to file a Bugzilla entry only when we can’t look at the issue immediately, in order to keep track of it. status.xml has always been better kept up-to-date than Bugzilla. Since it contains information that is not in Bugzilla, it is more important. We can decide to change that and use a bug tracking system instead, but in the same time we do that we will have to have in place a new mechanism to generate the changes  page. Also, we will most likely have to find a way to feed the BTS with the content of status.xml that is not there yet.  http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/changes.html > When we committers make changes that are essentially bug fixes (as opposed > to minor cleanup), then we should not bypass this existing, accepted > practice, because doing so creates unnecessary exceptions in our > documentation and process trail. In other words, let's be consistent, and > document bugs we fix independently in the same fashion as when those bugs > are first reported by the community. > > I think this is a reasonable process and should not be contravened for the > sake of expediency. > > G. Vincent