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 appropriate
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 <cmpil...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
