On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Martin Kosek wrote:
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?
I think we should have tickets for reasonable pieces of work. The
problem is always in identifying what does 'reasonable' mean. A
single-line fix may be an important CVE fix or a key to an important
bugfix. Still, there should be a context to fit, thus a ticket.
--
/ Alexander Bokovoy

--
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

Reply via email to