Hi Abraham, You ask a very good question. The information you want to see is certainly useful.
http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1174 Is it necessary to see this information "in the bugtracker" ? The short answer to your question is that it is not supported. The long answer is that it can be supported with a lot of work. The VDD Generator can produce such information. It produces it as a separate report. This report is not shown in the SCM system or the bugtracker. It is a separate document. Additionally, Robert has been making progress developing Web Reports that can produce various types of such information. Here are some thoughts. It is possible to support this information you are asking for. But it will require some effort as to include parts of the VDD Generator logic directly into the tagging hooks. The reason is that on tagging the glue must first discover the changes between releases (e.g. to determine in your example that only file2.cpp and file3.cpp were changed). Additionally, you assumed there is only one branch of development. It is possible that a file is changed on multiple branches (e.g. main development branch, maintenance branches, developer experimentation branches), committed against the same bug. Would having multiple such tagging comments on the same bug be acceptable for you ? Could it be confusing ? Also, you assumed that the previous tag can be easily detected (e.g. in the tagging operation). e.g MYPROJECT_BUILD_1_0 is the next tag of ... MYPROJECT_BUILD_0_9 ? MYPROJECT_RELEASE_0_5_3 ? Detecting the previous tag name could be automated somewhat, but it could be incorrect. E.g. the "last tag applied" may be a retagging of a much, much more previous tag (like what used to be a personal developer tag). Do you want to require the programmer to always supply the previous tag name in the log message when tagging ? That could be taxing on the developer, but possible. Also, some SCM systems, like CVS, don't provide support for supplying a log message during tagging. They would need special support from Scmbug to allow the programmer to specify the previous tag. This can be a lot of work. What if a tag is renamed ? Will we have to go back to the bug-tracker and find all those tag comments and change them ? That's a lot of work too, but it's possible. Given all this, what do you feel would be most useful ? On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 13:10 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I've been playing with scmbug for a while and noticed its great > potential. However, there's one very particular thing I'd love to do, > although I don't know whether it's sopported or isn't. Here I go: > > Let's take a project with three files: > > myProject/file1.txt, version 1.1 > myProject/file2.cpp, version 1.8 > myProject/file3.java, version 1.5 > > and let's say that, requested by some bugs, I modified a couple of them, > resulting on the following: > > myProject/file1.txt, version 1.1 > myProject/file2.cpp, version 1.10, noted on bugs 820,815 > myProject/file3.java, version 1.6, noted on bug 800 > > Commit message for version 1.10 of file2.cpp appeared as a note on bugs > 820 and 815, and so happend with version 1.6 of file3.java on bug 800. > Clear til here. > > Now I tag my project, lets call it MYPROJECT_BUILD_1_0. What I'd like is > adding a note stating this fact on bugs linked with the versions of the > tagged files. In other words, having the stated, an "Included in > MYPROJECT_BUILD_1_0" note should appear on bugs 800, 815 and 820. > > And yet more complicated, that note is to be added only to bugs linked > with actual tagged versions. To ilustrate it with an example, let's say a > new bug is issued and file3.java is modified according to this, so the > project state now is: > > myProject/file1.txt, version 1.1 > myProject/file2.cpp, version 1.10, noted on bugs 820,815 > myProject/file3.java, version 1.7, noted on bug 830 > > If I tag the project as MYPROJECT_BUILD_1_1, the notification should > appear in bugs 815, 820 and 830, but not in 800, since it corresponds to a > version of file3.java not included in current tag. > > > > So, after all this stuff, my question is: is this supported? and if it > isn't, could it be done without great pain? > > Best Regards, > > Abraham Marín Pérez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Responsable de I+D > SILVANO CONSULTORES > Tfno.: 93.412.79.12 -- Fax: 93.410.92.90 > http://www.silvanoc.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > scmbug-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.mkgnu.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scmbug-users
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ scmbug-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mkgnu.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scmbug-users
