+1 in general for this proposal. Using JIRA for tracking TODO’s is great, especially for things like deprecation over/at releases. I am however unsure if *all* TODOs need to have a ticket assigned, so that is a detail we may want to discuss as well?
> On Nov 9, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Alex Clemmer <clemmer.alexan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I like this proposal a lot, as I often end up making a point to > mention the MESOS-XXXX number in the comment anyway. I would rather > have the format `TODO(MESOS-XXX)` though, because (1) the JIRA should > capture the reporter as well as the assignee, and (2) it's not > immediately clear from the structure that the name should be the > reporter and not, say, the assignee. > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Kapil Arya <ka...@mesosphere.io> wrote: >> Folks, >> >> I wanted to bring up a style issue related to the TODO tag in comments. I >> have filed a Jira ticket (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3850) >> with the following description: >> >> Currently, we have a TODO(<username-of-original-author>) tags to note stuff >> has "should be"/"has to be" done in future. While this provides us with >> some notion of accounting, it's not enough. >> >> The author listed in the TODO comment should be considered the "Reporter", >> but not necessarily the "Assignee". Further, since the stuff "should >> be"/"has to be" done, why not have a Jira issue tracking it? >> >> We can use TODO(MESOS-XXX) or TODO(<Reporter>:MESOS-XXX) or something >> similar. Finally, we might wan to consider adding this to the style guide >> to make it a soft/hard requirement. >> >> >> Are there any opinions/suggestions on this one? >> >> Best, >> Kapil > > > > -- > Alex > > Theory is the first term in the Taylor series of practice. -- Thomas M > Cover (1992)
