On 09/17/2015 02:00 PM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Martin Kosek wrote:
>> On 09/17/2015 01:47 PM, Tomas Babej wrote:
>>> Hi fellow developers,
>>> more or less we tend to stick to the tradition of linking Trac tickets
>>> to the commit messages of the patches we send to the list.
>>> However, every now and then, a patch lands on the list, which is either
>>> linked to a BZ or does not contain any link at all. Admittedly, I am
>>> also guilty of this mishap. This poses certain problems, as we're trying
>>> to automate the bookkeeping and pushing-related processes with ipatool [1].
>>> Nevertheless, this useful habit is not formally agreed upon by
>>> developers nor documented in our wiki [2]. I'd suggest we add it there,
>>> if we come to such consensus.
>>> This would mean:
>>> * Patches fixing an issue described only in BZ (rare issue) would need
>>> to create a Trac ticket referencing the BZ
>> +1
>>> * Patches fixing an issue not tracked in Trac nor BZ would need to file
>>> a ticket in Trac and reference it
>> I am not sure we are there yet. For typos and small fixes, I do not think we
>> need to create a hard requirement for a Trac ticket. But for patches that you
>> want to be considered for say backports to downstream releases, it is better 
>> to
>> have the ticket with the right metadata and collection of the right hashes 
>> that
>> the downstream release can digest.
> Yes, please do a ticket per a changeset.

Are you agreeing now to me, i.e. do not require tickets for trivial fixes or to
Tomas' proposal - require ticket for *all* patches?

Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to