Hi Robert, Steve, On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 17:45 +0000, Robert G Ward wrote: > Kristis, > > Thanks for the mail and considering our case. > > I like that idea. The reason we implemented this our way was so that we did > not have to enter the bug ID's multiple times. If the check-in does not > resolve bug 744, then I'm not sure we would include it in that checkin. > > Something closer for our needs would be as follows: > > bug 547,600: Implemented automatic status resolution as a new policy. > This seems to work but will need improvements in the testsuite. > status: RESOLVED FIXED > > ie, if there were no-bug id's defined for the status change, then the status > change is applied to the bugs defined in the first line. This, I think, > would be a more useful scenario, and easier for the developers to do.
I like the simplicity of this scenario. One concern is that, ideally, we'd like to also allow a single commit to potentially provide multiple log messages -- different per bug: http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=647 Thus the work in bug 647 could conflict with this scenario you are proposing, especially if the user gets into the habit of not supplying the bug numbers for the status resolution. Nevertheless, it seems possible to assume that if only a single commit message and single status resolution description are found that the status resolution corresponds to the bug numbers. This is worth investigating. Thanks again for your feedback.
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
