On 04/08/2011 11:25 PM, Gav... wrote:
> This whole thread started because the 'actual standards' state to
> only mention the Issue Number in the final commit...
>
> "...+However, larger features or bug fixes, should be split them into
> +smaller commits. In this case, the issue number should only occur
> in +the final commit, which closes the issue..."
>
> As mentioned before, knowing which is really the last commit to close
> an issue is a hard one, and having many commits not tied to an issue
> number makes people wonder what issue it is for.
>
> Jira itself keeps track of commits for a particular issue, but only
> if the commit has the issue number mentioned in the commit message.
>
> See for example:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZETACOMP-8?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.ext.subversion%3Asubversion-commits-tabpanel#issue-tabs
>
> and most other projects are doing the same thing, i.e.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-1224?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.ext.subversion%3Asubversion-commits-tabpanel#issue-tabs
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-516?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.ext.subversion%3Asubversion-commits-tabpanel#issue-tabs
>
> etc etc...
>
> for that helpful feature alone it is worth the extra few characters
> per commit message.
I agree with Gavin that this would indeed be useful. However, we should
try to not end up with endless infrastructure discussions. :)
What is desired here is a simple way of mentioning the issue number in
each commit where we work on a specific issue.
What about:
- Fixed #ZETACOMP-$x: ...
for the final commit fixing an issue and
- Work #ZETACOMP-$x: ...
for intermediate commits? The "Work" keyword can then be used for both,
issues and enhancements, we don't add much bloat and stick to the
current way of having simple keywords.
Regards,
Toby
--
Tobias Schlitt http://schlitt.info GPG Key: 0xC462BC14
Want to hire me? Need quality assurance? http://qafoo.com
eZ Components are Zeta Components now! http://bit.ly/9S7zbn
