Ismael, If you create a pull request on github today then a JIRA is created so folks can see and respond and such. The JIRA hooks also provide in comment updates too.
What issue are you having or looking to-do? ~ Joe Stein On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:52 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > Hi all, > > Guozhang raised this topic in the "[DISCUSS] Using GitHub Pull Requests for > contributions and code review" thread and suggested starting a new thread > for it. > > In the Spark project, they say: > > "If the change is new, then it usually needs a new JIRA. However, trivial > changes, where "what should change" is virtually the same as "how it should > change" do not require a JIRA. > Example: "Fix typos in Foo scaladoc"." > > In such cases, the commit message would be prefixed with [MINOR] or > [HOTFIX] instead of [KAFKA-xxx]. > > I can see the pros and cons for each approach. > > Always requiring a JIRA ticket makes it more consistent and makes it > possible to use JIRA as the place to prioritise what needs attention > (although this is imperfect as code review will take place in the pull > request and it's likely that JIRA won't always be fully in sync for > in-progress items). > > Skipping JIRA tickets for minor/hotfix pull requests (where the JIRA ticket > just duplicates the information in the pull request) eliminates redundant > work and reduces the barrier to contribution (it is likely that people will > occasionally submit PRs without a JIRA even when the change is too big for > that though). > > Guozhang suggested in the original thread: > > "Personally I think it is better to not enforcing a JIRA ticket for minor / > hotfix commits, for example, we can format the title with [MINOR] [HOTFIX] > etc as in Spark" > > What do others think? > > Best, > Ismael >
