On Mar 8, 2009, at 7:09 AM, Blair Zajac wrote:
On Mar 7, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Mar 7, 2009, at 17:06, Bryan Blackburn wrote:
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 05:50:09PM -0500, [email protected] said:
I think we should require port commits to reference existing,
open Trac
tickets.
For all commits? That would be horrible, then I'd have to create
a ticket
every time I wanted to update my own ports as well.
Well, one could make multiple commits against one ticket, but yes. :)
Where does one draw the line between commits requiring tickets and
commits that can be made by anyone with a bit? Are tickets only for
commits that might need some discussion? If you're trying to track
changes and the reasons behind them, is it just a matter of digging
through the commit history? Browsing through related tickets? Both? I
think it's really not so horrible for developers to describe changes
in a consistent place before making commits into a repository.
After a little consideration I have to agree with Bryan. There are
many times when I want to fix a port's whitespace, or fix a typo in
a comment, or make another minor modification for which there's no
ticket. Forcing me to make a ticket every time would be annoying. I
agree there are some commits that have occurred without tickets
where tickets would have been desirable, but I think the
disadvantages of using this hook outweigh its benefits for MacPorts.
+1. A little too much process there. The commit message should
fully describe the change if there's no Trac ticket then.
I appreciate the feedback, and I recognize that such a hook might be
too cumbersome for MacPorts. I also appreciate the proactive
enhancements that help to benefit the project and move things forward.
I'll get back to checking my builds! :)
Thanks,
Chris
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
