Hi C. Michael,
As a developer of non-svn stuff and a user of svn, not a developer of
svn, I support your notion that PATCH doesn't have any meaning.
I might also make the same comment about TASK. But that's another
issue for another day.
On May 7, 2010, at 9:39 AM, 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
> 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.).
> Anybody object?
> C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On
Craig L Russell
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell_at_oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Received on 2010-05-10 11:39:14 CEST