On 2007-11-06T07:04:41, Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know that others might disagree with this - but trying to squeeze
> everything that is already in a bugzilla entry into a commit message is
> going to result in these kinds of complaints. And, not to mention a lot of
> duplication of effort.
Yes, I disagree. It's in direct contradiction to my experience on other
projects, and on managing the kernel release branches at SUSE.
The commit messages are the concise summary of the change, either for
the developer or for the users, preferably both.
Having to retrieve bugzilla entries makes assembling a changelog
impossibly complicated. If you're tracing a change, you have the offline
repository. It should be largely self-sufficient.
> If we added the risk field to bugzilla - it already has all the rest of the
> info in the database.
This is making the process way too complicated.
> If you look in the "real world" outside open source development, it's the
> norm to tie source control and bug tracking together for lots of good
> reasons.
We're within the Open Source world, and use a distributed version
control system for excellent reasons. And keep in mind that not
everybody will have access to all bugzillas all the time.
Regards,
Lars
--
Teamlead Kernel, SuSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
