Whether we need issues for PRs is a separate discussion. There has to be _something_ for every commit - either a PR or an issue, at the least there needs to be an r+ somewhere. I would like to see who reviewed something so I can ping someone with questions other than the author (if they are offline). Any discussion is likely to be useful.
So the question is how to find that, when necessary. GitHub sometimes fails to point to the info. And when it does, you do not know if you are missing more info. For the price of 6 characters in the commit message (or "no issue"), we know with certainty where to find that info and that we are not missing other potentially useful info. This would not slow down development in any way. Note that this is orthogonal to use of version control - you still need to know Git in order to get the commit message - it is about how one can go easily from a commit message to meta-data about a commit. On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Kevin Ballard <ke...@sb.org> wrote: > This is not going to work in the slightest. > > Most PRs don't have an associated issue. The pull request *is* the issue. > And that's perfectly fine. There's no need to file an issue separate from > the PR itself. Requiring a referenced issue for every single commit would > be extremely cumbersome, serve no real purpose aside from aiding an > unwillingness to learn how source control works, and would probably slow > down the rate of development of Rust. > > -Kevin > > On Feb 17, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Nick Cameron <li...@ncameron.org> wrote: > > At worst you could just use the issue number for the PR. But I think all > non-trivial commits _should_ have an issue associated. For really tiny > commits we could allow "no issue" or '#0' in the message. Just so long as > the author is being explicit, I think that is OK. > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Scott Lawrence <byt...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Maybe I'm misunderstanding? This would require that all commits be >> specifically associated with an issue. I don't have actual stats, but >> briefly skimming recent commits and looking at the issue tracker, a lot of >> commits can't be reasonably associated with an issue. This requirement >> would either force people to create fake issues for each commit, or to >> reference tangentially-related or overly-broad issues in commit messages, >> neither of which is very useful. >> >> Referencing any conversation that leads to or influences a commit is a >> good idea, but something this inflexible doesn't seem right. >> >> My 1.5ยข. >> >> >> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Nick Cameron wrote: >> >> How would people feel about a requirement for all commit messages to have >>> an issue number in them? And could we make bors enforce that? >>> >>> The reason is that GitHub is very bad at being able to trace back a >>> commit >>> to the issue it fixes (sometimes it manages, but not always). Not being >>> able to find the discussion around a commit is extremely annoying. >>> >>> Cheers, Nick >>> >>> >> -- >> Scott Lawrence > > > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > Rust-dev@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev > > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
