In light of this thread, I was somewhat surprised to see this: http://hg.linux-ha.org/dev?cs=5efbd40c99db
Particularly given some other emails I have sent to this list on the topic. On 11/9/06, Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2006-11-07T08:17:10, Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'd like to suggest what I think is a simple but useful policy for >> dealing with commits to Mercurial which correspond to bug reports. > > I've tried getting people to agree to bugzilla & SCM policies/guidelines > for more than several months, but in the past, nobody ever sticked to > them. ;-) > > So, yes, I think including the bug number in the commits in the first > line is a great idea, and I love to see that you're finally agreeing. I never disagreed on this. But, I'm always happy to give you a reason to complain ;-) >> 3) For each bug which has been marked as fixed, the changeset submitted >> to -dev should be indicated by URL. An example of what I mean can be >> found in OSDL bugzilla 1443. > > Yes, providing the backlink is good, but having it in the commit message > is what I consider most important. > >> http://www.osdl.org/developer_bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1443 >> Note that in this case, it took me two changesets to really resolve >> the bug. Both are indicated in the bugzilla. This bug doesn't >> follow my suggested guidelines perfectly - in the 2nd changeset it >> just says "Bugzilla 1443" instead of "OSDL 1443". The appearance >> of the # sign would also be an improvement, I think... > > I don't think we really need the #. It makes cut&paste more annoying (# > is included if you double-click on the word), and and everyone knows > that, well, it is a number, so it is sort-of redundant. > >> In an ideal world these things could be followed consistently enough >> that one could write a tool that given any changeset could find the >> bugzilla for it and vice versa. But, failing that, it would be good if >> humans could do it quickly and easily. > > Yes. > > I'd also like to point out that commit messages of user-visible changes > should always include an update to the changelog in the spec file. Sounds really good to me, since otherwise I have to put them in the ChangeLog myself - and that's my least favorite part of this release process. -- Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship... Let me claim from you at all times your undisguised opinions." - William Wilberforce _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
_______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
