[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: RFC: Issue tracker treatment of patches.

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 19:03:31 +0200

On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 12:39:05PM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> I've never been a fan of the PATCH issue type present in our tracker. While
> the other issue types (TASK, DEFECT, ENHANCEMENT, FEATURE) tell you
> something about the problem that needs a-fixin', PATCH tells you only that
> someone has proposed some code change. But for what?
> So in the ViewVC project I switched do a slightly different method for
> tracking patches, which goes as follows:
> - never ever use the PATCH issue type. Instead, use the type appropriate
> for what the patch proposes to change about the code. Is it fixing a
> DEFECT? Adding a new FEATURE? etc.
> - for issues that have a patch associated with them, record a "patch"
> keyword. This still allows you to query "all issues with patches"
> just as easily as querying issue_type=PATCH, and does so (again)
> without losing that valuable information about the real problem.
> I'd like to move to this methodology in our own tracker. Like, today.
> Because the changes are reversible, I'll probably just go for it later this
> afternoon, after seeking some favor in IRC and after popping off this email.
> And of course, I'll update any related docs we may have on the website (for
> the public, or Patch Manager instructions, etc.).
+1, this makes a lot of sense.

Received on 2010-05-07 19:04:08 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.