Hi Ben, I agree.
In general, I too do see that this artificial separation is adding little/no value. This would also simplify a bit the build scripts: instead of having to parse the PR name to get the issue number, we could just use the available PR number. > El 14 jul 2019, a las 10:30, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> escribió: > > Some improvements are often discovered, fixed and submitted all in the same > moment - prior to their being an existing Issue logged. > When we were using MCZ files that had no facility to hang a discussion on > them, > it was a good policy that **every** contribution required an Issue as a place > for discussion and approval. > However we are now using Pull Requests that provide such a facility for > discussion and approval. > > There is not much difference between an "Issue" and a "PR" - indeed their > index numbers are interleaved. > So when we already have a PR ready to go, it seems redundant to first create > an matching Issue just to have something to close. > It seems particularly redundant when an Issues is created and closed within > the same hour a PR is submitted and unnecessary double-handling. > > So I propose that pre-fixed-issues that a submitted with a code contribution > require a PR-only > and "Issues" are left for reports without an immediate fix that require > longer term visibility. > > cheers -ben > > P.S. Thank you Torsten for your stream of small fixes. > > > <x.png>
