Hi ! On 5/31/12, Joachim Dreimann <[email protected]> wrote: > I would say these extra hooks aren't something essential for the initial > release. The remote repository access (that the ticket is about) is also > likely to be a high priority v2 problem, because the application works well > in many common use cases without it. >
jftr ... I was not thinking of including these in Bloodhound for releases . I was focused on the particular setup of the instance deployed @ https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound > - Joe > > On 31 May 2012 17:02, Gary Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Olemis, >> >> Do you mean post-commit hooks other than anything required to keep trac >> informed of repository changes? >> I was thinking of ticket updates via closes #111 , etc ... >> I am wary of using commit messages to automate ticket changes, be that >> comments or status changes. I think this needs some thinking through to >> see >> if it is the best solution to automatic association of commits with >> tickets. It should be noted that we should expect to already have a view >> of >> commits against a ticket listed in the activity area. >> and how is it that association between tickets and changesets will happen ? manually ? [...] -- Regards, Olemis. Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/ Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/ Featured article:
