Re: Add JIRA ticket# to `TODO`s in comments

[Benjamin Mahler]

I'm a -1 on the syntax: I'm not sure why the syntax is being proposed when
folks are free to add one or more tickets in the content of the TODO, much
in the same way as comments are written in general. When optional, there is
also the inconsistency of TODO syntax across the code base which seems
unfortunate.

It does seem like a good idea to include some guidelines and examples
around when to use TODOs vs. tickets. Sometimes TODOs are written as food
for thought, or to suggest things to the next person that approaches the
code, as Alex Rukletsov described.

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Kapil Arya  wrote:

> I like the idea of making it a soft requirement. That way for chain
> reviews, one can still have some TODOs which are going to be resolved by a
> later patch.
>
> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015, Jojy Varghese  wrote:
>
> > If we are going to track these TODOs on JIRA, I hope we add these as
> > sub-tasks to the stories/epics and are not floating free. Which brings
> the
> > question - how are epic completion timelines effected by these.
> >
> > -Jojy
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 11, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Greg Mann  > > wrote:
> > >
> > > +1
> > > for adding TODO(MESOS-) to the style guide as a soft requirement. I
> > > don't think it should be strictly required, since sometimes creating a
> > JIRA
> > > ticket just doesn't make sense, but I do have the feeling that in
> *most*
> > > cases, our process would benefit from creating a JIRA at the moment a
> > TODO
> > > is created to help ensure that the work doesn't fall through the
> cracks.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Greg
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Marco Massenzio  > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> -1
> > >> for mandatory adding MESOS- to TODO.
> > >>
> > >> it makes it more cumbersome to add TODOs and, I fear, would discourage
> > >> people from adding those.
> > >> For example in a "chain", TODOs may be short-lived enough that adding
> a
> > >> Jira would only add noise.
> > >>
> > >> I'm not even sure that (optionally) adding the Jira to the TODO will
> add
> > >> much value (in fact, it may make our backlog even more "noisy" than it
> > >> currently is) but I am willing to experiment with this and see how it
> > goes.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> *Marco Massenzio*
> > >> Distributed Systems Engineer
> > >> http://codetrips.com
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Alex Rukletsov  > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I think we should encourage people to follow this pattern, but not
> > making
> > >>> this obligatory.
> > >>>
> > >>> I may be wrong, but I feel that sometimes we use `TODO`s as food for
> > >>> thought, not for something that should or will necessarily be
> > implemented
> > >>> soon. A `TODO` may provide additional context to the implementation
> > from
> > >>> the perspective, how the code or related feature may evolve in the
> > >> future.
> > >>> However, that original vision may change over time, so it's not
> always
> > >>> reasonable to create a ticket.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Kapil Arya  > > wrote:
> > >>>
> >  Hi Ben,
> > 
> >  On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Benjamin Mahler <
> >  benjamin.mah...@gmail.com >
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > Kapil would you mind clarifying what is being proposed here? Folks
> > >> are
> > > already free to include a reference to a ticket when writing a
> > >> comment
> >  or a
> > > TODO, so is the suggestion here to require it for TODOs? Or to add
> a
> >  syntax
> > > for this? If it's the latter, what does the syntax achieve?
> > >
> > 
> >  The proposal is two fold:
> > 
> >  A. Make it mandatory to include a JIRA ticket number with the TODO.
> > 
> >  B. Add a syntax for this and for that we need some consensus. I
> > >> proposed
> >  two options in the initial email:
> > 1. TODO(:MESOS-XXX)
> > 2. TODO(MESOS-XXX)
> > 
> >  I personally prefer the second option, since the `REPORTER' is
> already
> >  covered as part of the Jira ticket.
> > 
> >  Kapil
> > 
> > 
> > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Klaus Ma  > >
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1, JIRA will include more discussion and we can close it when it
> > >> has
> > > been
> > >> improved.
> > >>
> > >> 
> > >> Da (Klaus), Ma (马达) | PMP® | Advisory Software Engineer
> > >> Platform Symphony/DCOS Development & Support, STG, IBM GCG
> > >> +86-10-8245 4084 | klaus1982...@gmail.com  |
> > http://k82.me
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Alexander Rojas <
> > > alexan...@mesosphere.io >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> +1
> > >>>
> > >>> This 

Re: Add JIRA ticket# to `TODO`s in comments

[Alexander Rojas]

+1

This also provides a way of removing TODO’s since they are traceable. If you 
look in the code, there are TODO’s which are no relevant anymore or probably 
cannot be understood from their actual context.

> On 08 Nov 2015, at 05:50, Kapil Arya  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() 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(: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

Re: Add JIRA ticket# to `TODO`s in comments

[Benjamin Mahler]

Kapil would you mind clarifying what is being proposed here? Folks are
already free to include a reference to a ticket when writing a comment or a
TODO, so is the suggestion here to require it for TODOs? Or to add a syntax
for this? If it's the latter, what does the syntax achieve?

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Klaus Ma  wrote:

> +1, JIRA will include more discussion and we can close it when it has been
> improved.
>
> 
> Da (Klaus), Ma (马达) | PMP® | Advisory Software Engineer
> Platform Symphony/DCOS Development & Support, STG, IBM GCG
> +86-10-8245 4084 | klaus1982...@gmail.com | http://k82.me
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Alexander Rojas 
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > This also provides a way of removing TODO’s since they are traceable. If
> > you look in the code, there are TODO’s which are no relevant anymore or
> > probably cannot be understood from their actual context.
> >
> > > On 08 Nov 2015, at 05:50, Kapil Arya  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() 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(: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
> >
> >
>

Re: Add JIRA ticket# to `TODO`s in comments

[Alex Rukletsov]

I think we should encourage people to follow this pattern, but not making
this obligatory.

I may be wrong, but I feel that sometimes we use `TODO`s as food for
thought, not for something that should or will necessarily be implemented
soon. A `TODO` may provide additional context to the implementation from
the perspective, how the code or related feature may evolve in the future.
However, that original vision may change over time, so it's not always
reasonable to create a ticket.

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Kapil Arya  wrote:

> Hi Ben,
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Benjamin Mahler <
> benjamin.mah...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Kapil would you mind clarifying what is being proposed here? Folks are
> > already free to include a reference to a ticket when writing a comment
> or a
> > TODO, so is the suggestion here to require it for TODOs? Or to add a
> syntax
> > for this? If it's the latter, what does the syntax achieve?
> >
>
> The proposal is two fold:
>
> A. Make it mandatory to include a JIRA ticket number with the TODO.
>
> B. Add a syntax for this and for that we need some consensus. I proposed
> two options in the initial email:
> 1. TODO(:MESOS-XXX)
> 2. TODO(MESOS-XXX)
>
> I personally prefer the second option, since the `REPORTER' is already
> covered as part of the Jira ticket.
>
> Kapil
>
>
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Klaus Ma 
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1, JIRA will include more discussion and we can close it when it has
> > been
> > > improved.
> > >
> > > 
> > > Da (Klaus), Ma (马达) | PMP® | Advisory Software Engineer
> > > Platform Symphony/DCOS Development & Support, STG, IBM GCG
> > > +86-10-8245 4084 | klaus1982...@gmail.com | http://k82.me
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Alexander Rojas <
> > alexan...@mesosphere.io>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > This also provides a way of removing TODO’s since they are traceable.
> > If
> > > > you look in the code, there are TODO’s which are no relevant anymore
> or
> > > > probably cannot be understood from their actual context.
> > > >
> > > > > On 08 Nov 2015, at 05:50, Kapil Arya  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() 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(: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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Add JIRA ticket# to `TODO`s in comments

[Marco Massenzio]

-1
for mandatory adding MESOS- to TODO.

it makes it more cumbersome to add TODOs and, I fear, would discourage
people from adding those.
For example in a "chain", TODOs may be short-lived enough that adding a
Jira would only add noise.

I'm not even sure that (optionally) adding the Jira to the TODO will add
much value (in fact, it may make our backlog even more "noisy" than it
currently is) but I am willing to experiment with this and see how it goes.

--
*Marco Massenzio*
Distributed Systems Engineer
http://codetrips.com

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Alex Rukletsov  wrote:

> I think we should encourage people to follow this pattern, but not making
> this obligatory.
>
> I may be wrong, but I feel that sometimes we use `TODO`s as food for
> thought, not for something that should or will necessarily be implemented
> soon. A `TODO` may provide additional context to the implementation from
> the perspective, how the code or related feature may evolve in the future.
> However, that original vision may change over time, so it's not always
> reasonable to create a ticket.
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Kapil Arya  wrote:
>
> > Hi Ben,
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Benjamin Mahler <
> > benjamin.mah...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Kapil would you mind clarifying what is being proposed here? Folks are
> > > already free to include a reference to a ticket when writing a comment
> > or a
> > > TODO, so is the suggestion here to require it for TODOs? Or to add a
> > syntax
> > > for this? If it's the latter, what does the syntax achieve?
> > >
> >
> > The proposal is two fold:
> >
> > A. Make it mandatory to include a JIRA ticket number with the TODO.
> >
> > B. Add a syntax for this and for that we need some consensus. I proposed
> > two options in the initial email:
> > 1. TODO(:MESOS-XXX)
> > 2. TODO(MESOS-XXX)
> >
> > I personally prefer the second option, since the `REPORTER' is already
> > covered as part of the Jira ticket.
> >
> > Kapil
> >
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Klaus Ma 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1, JIRA will include more discussion and we can close it when it has
> > > been
> > > > improved.
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Da (Klaus), Ma (马达) | PMP® | Advisory Software Engineer
> > > > Platform Symphony/DCOS Development & Support, STG, IBM GCG
> > > > +86-10-8245 4084 | klaus1982...@gmail.com | http://k82.me
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Alexander Rojas <
> > > alexan...@mesosphere.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > This also provides a way of removing TODO’s since they are
> traceable.
> > > If
> > > > > you look in the code, there are TODO’s which are no relevant
> anymore
> > or
> > > > > probably cannot be understood from their actual context.
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 08 Nov 2015, at 05:50, Kapil Arya 
> 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() 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(: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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Add JIRA ticket# to `TODO`s in comments

[Greg Mann]

+1
for adding TODO(MESOS-) to the style guide as a soft requirement. I
don't think it should be strictly required, since sometimes creating a JIRA
ticket just doesn't make sense, but I do have the feeling that in *most*
cases, our process would benefit from creating a JIRA at the moment a TODO
is created to help ensure that the work doesn't fall through the cracks.

Cheers,
Greg

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Marco Massenzio 
wrote:

> -1
> for mandatory adding MESOS- to TODO.
>
> it makes it more cumbersome to add TODOs and, I fear, would discourage
> people from adding those.
> For example in a "chain", TODOs may be short-lived enough that adding a
> Jira would only add noise.
>
> I'm not even sure that (optionally) adding the Jira to the TODO will add
> much value (in fact, it may make our backlog even more "noisy" than it
> currently is) but I am willing to experiment with this and see how it goes.
>
> --
> *Marco Massenzio*
> Distributed Systems Engineer
> http://codetrips.com
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Alex Rukletsov 
> wrote:
>
> > I think we should encourage people to follow this pattern, but not making
> > this obligatory.
> >
> > I may be wrong, but I feel that sometimes we use `TODO`s as food for
> > thought, not for something that should or will necessarily be implemented
> > soon. A `TODO` may provide additional context to the implementation from
> > the perspective, how the code or related feature may evolve in the
> future.
> > However, that original vision may change over time, so it's not always
> > reasonable to create a ticket.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Kapil Arya  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Ben,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Benjamin Mahler <
> > > benjamin.mah...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Kapil would you mind clarifying what is being proposed here? Folks
> are
> > > > already free to include a reference to a ticket when writing a
> comment
> > > or a
> > > > TODO, so is the suggestion here to require it for TODOs? Or to add a
> > > syntax
> > > > for this? If it's the latter, what does the syntax achieve?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The proposal is two fold:
> > >
> > > A. Make it mandatory to include a JIRA ticket number with the TODO.
> > >
> > > B. Add a syntax for this and for that we need some consensus. I
> proposed
> > > two options in the initial email:
> > > 1. TODO(:MESOS-XXX)
> > > 2. TODO(MESOS-XXX)
> > >
> > > I personally prefer the second option, since the `REPORTER' is already
> > > covered as part of the Jira ticket.
> > >
> > > Kapil
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Klaus Ma 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1, JIRA will include more discussion and we can close it when it
> has
> > > > been
> > > > > improved.
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > Da (Klaus), Ma (马达) | PMP® | Advisory Software Engineer
> > > > > Platform Symphony/DCOS Development & Support, STG, IBM GCG
> > > > > +86-10-8245 4084 | klaus1982...@gmail.com | http://k82.me
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Alexander Rojas <
> > > > alexan...@mesosphere.io>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This also provides a way of removing TODO’s since they are
> > traceable.
> > > > If
> > > > > > you look in the code, there are TODO’s which are no relevant
> > anymore
> > > or
> > > > > > probably cannot be understood from their actual context.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 08 Nov 2015, at 05:50, Kapil Arya 
> > 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() 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(: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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Add JIRA ticket# to `TODO`s in comments

[Jojy Varghese]

If we are going to track these TODOs on JIRA, I hope we add these as sub-tasks 
to the stories/epics and are not floating free. Which brings the question - how 
are epic completion timelines effected by these.

-Jojy


> On Nov 11, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Greg Mann  wrote:
> 
> +1
> for adding TODO(MESOS-) to the style guide as a soft requirement. I
> don't think it should be strictly required, since sometimes creating a JIRA
> ticket just doesn't make sense, but I do have the feeling that in *most*
> cases, our process would benefit from creating a JIRA at the moment a TODO
> is created to help ensure that the work doesn't fall through the cracks.
> 
> Cheers,
> Greg
> 
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Marco Massenzio 
> wrote:
> 
>> -1
>> for mandatory adding MESOS- to TODO.
>> 
>> it makes it more cumbersome to add TODOs and, I fear, would discourage
>> people from adding those.
>> For example in a "chain", TODOs may be short-lived enough that adding a
>> Jira would only add noise.
>> 
>> I'm not even sure that (optionally) adding the Jira to the TODO will add
>> much value (in fact, it may make our backlog even more "noisy" than it
>> currently is) but I am willing to experiment with this and see how it goes.
>> 
>> --
>> *Marco Massenzio*
>> Distributed Systems Engineer
>> http://codetrips.com
>> 
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Alex Rukletsov 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I think we should encourage people to follow this pattern, but not making
>>> this obligatory.
>>> 
>>> I may be wrong, but I feel that sometimes we use `TODO`s as food for
>>> thought, not for something that should or will necessarily be implemented
>>> soon. A `TODO` may provide additional context to the implementation from
>>> the perspective, how the code or related feature may evolve in the
>> future.
>>> However, that original vision may change over time, so it's not always
>>> reasonable to create a ticket.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Kapil Arya  wrote:
>>> 
 Hi Ben,
 
 On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Benjamin Mahler <
 benjamin.mah...@gmail.com>
 wrote:
 
> Kapil would you mind clarifying what is being proposed here? Folks
>> are
> already free to include a reference to a ticket when writing a
>> comment
 or a
> TODO, so is the suggestion here to require it for TODOs? Or to add a
 syntax
> for this? If it's the latter, what does the syntax achieve?
> 
 
 The proposal is two fold:
 
 A. Make it mandatory to include a JIRA ticket number with the TODO.
 
 B. Add a syntax for this and for that we need some consensus. I
>> proposed
 two options in the initial email:
1. TODO(:MESOS-XXX)
2. TODO(MESOS-XXX)
 
 I personally prefer the second option, since the `REPORTER' is already
 covered as part of the Jira ticket.
 
 Kapil
 
 
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Klaus Ma 
 wrote:
> 
>> +1, JIRA will include more discussion and we can close it when it
>> has
> been
>> improved.
>> 
>> 
>> Da (Klaus), Ma (马达) | PMP® | Advisory Software Engineer
>> Platform Symphony/DCOS Development & Support, STG, IBM GCG
>> +86-10-8245 4084 | klaus1982...@gmail.com | http://k82.me
>> 
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Alexander Rojas <
> alexan...@mesosphere.io>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> This also provides a way of removing TODO’s since they are
>>> traceable.
> If
>>> you look in the code, there are TODO’s which are no relevant
>>> anymore
 or
>>> probably cannot be understood from their actual context.
>>> 
 On 08 Nov 2015, at 05:50, Kapil Arya 
>>> 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() 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(: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
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
 
>>> 
>> 

Re: Add JIRA ticket# to `TODO`s in comments

[Kapil Arya]

Hi Ben,

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Benjamin Mahler 
wrote:

> Kapil would you mind clarifying what is being proposed here? Folks are
> already free to include a reference to a ticket when writing a comment or a
> TODO, so is the suggestion here to require it for TODOs? Or to add a syntax
> for this? If it's the latter, what does the syntax achieve?
>

The proposal is two fold:

A. Make it mandatory to include a JIRA ticket number with the TODO.

B. Add a syntax for this and for that we need some consensus. I proposed
two options in the initial email:
1. TODO(:MESOS-XXX)
2. TODO(MESOS-XXX)

I personally prefer the second option, since the `REPORTER' is already
covered as part of the Jira ticket.

Kapil


> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Klaus Ma  wrote:
>
> > +1, JIRA will include more discussion and we can close it when it has
> been
> > improved.
> >
> > 
> > Da (Klaus), Ma (马达) | PMP® | Advisory Software Engineer
> > Platform Symphony/DCOS Development & Support, STG, IBM GCG
> > +86-10-8245 4084 | klaus1982...@gmail.com | http://k82.me
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Alexander Rojas <
> alexan...@mesosphere.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > This also provides a way of removing TODO’s since they are traceable.
> If
> > > you look in the code, there are TODO’s which are no relevant anymore or
> > > probably cannot be understood from their actual context.
> > >
> > > > On 08 Nov 2015, at 05:50, Kapil Arya  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() 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(: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
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Add JIRA ticket# to `TODO`s in comments

[Klaus Ma]

+1, JIRA will include more discussion and we can close it when it has been
improved.


Da (Klaus), Ma (马达) | PMP® | Advisory Software Engineer
Platform Symphony/DCOS Development & Support, STG, IBM GCG
+86-10-8245 4084 | klaus1982...@gmail.com | http://k82.me

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Alexander Rojas 
wrote:

> +1
>
> This also provides a way of removing TODO’s since they are traceable. If
> you look in the code, there are TODO’s which are no relevant anymore or
> probably cannot be understood from their actual context.
>
> > On 08 Nov 2015, at 05:50, Kapil Arya  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() 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(: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
>
>

Re: Add JIRA ticket# to `TODO`s in comments

[Adam Avilla]

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Bernd Mathiske  wrote:

>  +1 on converting lots of TODOs into JIRAs with links to them in the TODOs.
>

Totally agree with pulling TODOs out to something more visible / trackable
/ scheduleable.


> Questions with opinions:
> - Do we need to create extra tickets like “Edit TODO to mention ticket
> MESOS-XXX”? I suppose not.
>

I think that would be noisy.


> - Do we even need an RR for updating a TODO? I suppose yes.
>

Can be helpful because you can get feedback with making sure the ticket
created is quantifiable, detailed, and attainable.


> - Every TODO *CAN* be a ticket - how’s that for starters? I’d also go
> along with MUST if there is consensus on that.
>

A cursory look shows:

$ git rev-parse HEAD ; git grep TODO | grep -Evc MESOS-[0-9]+
73deb1cd10d9eee16643e646f2f7545cfc22f4b0
1313

Was the suggestion to create different tickets for every TODO, group them
into higher level tickets, or both?

-- 
/adam

Re: Add JIRA ticket# to `TODO`s in comments

[Bernd Mathiske]

 +1 on converting lots of TODOs into JIRAs with links to them in the TODOs.

Questions with opinions:
- Do we need to create extra tickets like “Edit TODO to mention ticket 
MESOS-XXX”? I suppose not.
- Do we even need an RR for updating a TODO? I suppose yes.
- Can we do several TODO updates at once across several/many files/topics in 
one RR? I propose: no limits, except stout/libprocess boundaries.
- Every TODO *CAN* be a ticket - how’s that for starters? I’d also go along 
with MUST if there is consensus on that.

Opinions "without question":
- The assignee MUST be left open until the ticket is in a sprint.
- Typically, the reporter should be the person now mentioned in the TODO. 
Alternatively, if there is significant extra information in the ticket,the 
person making the effort to write the ticket can be the Reporter, if leaving a 
comment giving some credit to the original TODO author.

Bernd

> On Nov 9, 2015, at 11:54 AM, Till Toenshoff  wrote:
> 
> +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  wrote:
>> 
>> I like this proposal a lot, as I often end up making a point to
>> mention the MESOS- 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  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() 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(: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)
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Add JIRA ticket# to `TODO`s in comments

[Till Toenshoff]

+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  wrote:
> 
> I like this proposal a lot, as I often end up making a point to
> mention the MESOS- 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  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() 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(: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)

Re: Add JIRA ticket# to `TODO`s in comments

[Alex Clemmer]

I like this proposal a lot, as I often end up making a point to
mention the MESOS- 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  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() 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(: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)

Add JIRA ticket# to `TODO`s in comments

[Kapil Arya]

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() 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(: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