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: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code