3. +1 to Anthony and Dan's recommendation not to use a catch-all JIRA. I think the idea was an attempt to fit within existing guidelines. If there's no requirement to use a JIRA here, let's not do it.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:26 AM Dave Barnes <dbar...@pivotal.io> wrote: > 3. If there's no hard-and-fast rule for *always* associating a JIRA with > every change, then I agree with Anthony and Dan for typos and small > changes. > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > 1) +1 > > 2) +1 > > > > 3) > > > I don’t see much value in creating an uber-JIRA for tracking minor doc > > changes. Why not skip it entirely? > > I agree with Anthony on this one, there's not much value in having some > > catch all JIRA for unrelated changes. > > > > -Dan > > > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > > > What I _think_ you are suggesting is using C-T-R (commit-then-review) > [1] > > > for reasonably well-defined documentation-related changes. Do you > agree? > > > > > > Here’s why we tag commits with a JIRA: > > > > > > - we can better understand the reason for a code change by looking at > the > > > associated JIRA > > > - we can scope work in/out of a release by using ‘Fix version’ on the > > JIRA > > > - we can generate release notes by looking at resolved issues for a > given > > > version > > > > > > I don’t see much value in creating an uber-JIRA for tracking minor doc > > > changes. Why not skip it entirely? > > > > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#CommitThenReview < > > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#CommitThenReview> > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 2016, at 5:45 PM, Karen Miller <kmil...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > With our documentation now in the same repository as the code, there > > are > > > now > > > > some doc-related issues that could use some community consensus. Here > > are > > > > some of my opinions to start the discussion. > > > > > > > > 1. Create new JIRA tickets for each documentation task, or use the > > > existing > > > > ticket under > > > > which the code is committed for the documentation task? > > > > > > > > I'd like to see a combination of both, but use the existing ticket > > > > wherever > > > > possible. By using the same ticket as the code, the documentation > > effort > > > is > > > > less > > > > likely to be forgotten. I certainly think that when a new property > is > > > > introduced, > > > > or a default value is changed, the same ticket can be used. > > > > > > > > I think that for large, and new efforts (in the documentation), new > > > > tickets are the > > > > way to go. > > > > > > > > 2. Do we need a review effort for all documentation tasks? > > > > > > > > My opinion: no, not for everything. The bigger the changes, the > more > > > > likely that > > > > a review is warranted. > > > > > > > > 3. Do we need a new JIRA ticket for each very little documentation > > > change? > > > > > > > > On this question, my strong opinion is no, we don't need distinct > > JIRAs. > > > > I'd like to propose that we use a single ticket per release that > > > > all typo fixes and really small changes are committed under. No > > > > reviews needed. We won't end up with dozens of tickets, each for a > tiny > > > > change that really needs no community discussion. If the ticket > > becomes > > > > abused, > > > > we can revisit the topic. > > > > > > > > I've already created > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-2036 > > > for > > > > just this purpose, as I have a typo that I want to fix. If no one > > > objects, > > > > we can > > > > use this ticket for all tiny fixes that go with Geode 1.1.0. > > > > > > > > >
