On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Nachi Ueno <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi folks > > I believed we should link bug or bp for any commit except automated > commit by infra. > However, I found also there is no written policy for this. > so may be, I'm wrong for here. > > The reason, we need bug or bp linked , is > > (1) Triage for core reviewing
(2) Avoid duplication of works > I'm not sure how this will help. folks will just file duplicate bugs write before the push there patch for review. > (3) Release management > Can you give some examples to show why requiring a bug or bp helps with the items listed above. > > IMO, generally, the answer is yes. > > However, how about small 5-6 nit change? > so such patch will be exception or not? > > I wanna ask community opinion, and I'll update gerrit workflow page based > on > this discussion. > I don't trying to enforce this policy alone will help. For a patch that doesn't have a bug or blueprint assocatiated we have two options. * File a blueprint. Now that many projects use specs repos blueprints have a significant overhead associated with them, so we should be careful about incurring that overhead. * File a bug. Sure we can file a bug for every patch, but there is still an overhead associated with that, and in most cases I don't think it really buys us much. If the change isn't a real bug but say 'sync code from oslo-incubator' what does adding a linked bug really buy us? > > Best > Nachi > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
