+1
It will be really good if Symfony project will use youtrack (it's free for 
open-source projects)

On Monday, September 17, 2012 9:49:26 PM UTC+4, Florin Patan wrote:
>
> @stof it's true that most of the current PR don't provide the 
> documentation for it but on the other hand having a two-step good-to-merge 
> process would ease up the problems with it.
>
> First and foremost the PR should reach a state as close to final as 
> possible in terms of features and code then it should be flagged as good 
> for merge (or something that reflects the state better).
>
> Then the PR should cover all the other aspects before needing to be merged 
> like CS and documentation, or anything else that's decided to be done in 
> this step. When the second step is done the PR should be changed to ready 
> for merge and be merged as soon as possible.
>
> This should be done for every type of PR, feature addition, feature change 
> and bug fix. This way if for example one does the code for the PR but 
> becomes unavailable then someone else could pickup the documentation/CS for 
> it and do it so that the PR can be merged. I believe that people that would 
> want a certain PR to be merged would then be motived to finish the reminder 
> of the process for a PR to be accepted if the need occurs.
>
> Also, if we'd have a roadmap with the changes planned for each release 
> that could be interactive, vote for a certain feature to be done faster 
> that the other and so on then people would know when to expect a certain 
> thing to become available. For example see the way YouTrack from JetBrains 
> allows it, see http://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issues/WI for PhpStorm/WI as 
> an example (but not as yet another issue tracker), which I believe it's a 
> very good way to keep track of what users want merged/implemented faster. 
>
> I know that Symfony is based on a community of contributors, it's a 
> different model from JetBrains' one, so maybe voting for features wouldn't 
> seem so obvious but in the long run contributors would be able to channel 
> their efforts better imo.
>
> Also validating the CS on the second step would allow one to focus on 
> doing the functionality first then fix any quirks remaining in the code 
> would ease up the review process of the PR, where possible.
>
> And a well defined checklist for a PR to cover would also help keeping 
> track of things fresh contributors need to handle to know that their PR can 
> be merged or not.
>
>
> --
> Florin
>
> On Monday, September 17, 2012 6:57:28 PM UTC+3, Christophe COEVOET wrote:
>>
>>  Le 17/09/2012 17:51, Michael C a écrit :
>>  
>>  I personally (from experience) have found that features blocking a 
>> release can end in disaster and can upset the whole principal of a 
>> time-based release model as the feature can end up delaying the release; 
>> especially if it’s a feature that many want but not many want to help with.
>>
>>  
>>
>> As for > 5.3, at the moment 5.2 is the most used PHP version; followed 
>> closely by 5.3. However the amount of users/hosts using 5.4 is currently 
>> quite small and isn't worth thinking about until at least 2.7 or 3.0 (2015 
>> or later). The fact that 5.3 was first released in 2009 and the fact that 
>> it still is not as used as 5.2 (2006) is shocking.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I think having to complete the whole checklist done for something 
>> straight away for something that might not be used might put off new 
>> contributors. As has been suggested a 2-step PR process where after it is 
>> mostly done; if it looks like it will be merged then complete the checklist 
>> (documentation etc.) rather than straight away. This also means that if the 
>> developer is asked to change anything significant this can be done before 
>> documentation etc. is written and it therefore means that does not also 
>> need updating.
>>
>>  Merging the PR before the documentation PR is done is a bad idea IMO. 
>> It will lead to the same issue than currently: no doc PR done in many cases.
>> However, as Fabien said in a previous mail, having the full checklist is 
>> not required to open the PR. It would be required to merge it, meaning you 
>> can start writing the doc once the code review has validated the way it is 
>> done.
>>
>> -- 
>> Christophe | Stof
>>
>> 

-- 
If you want to report a vulnerability issue on symfony, please send it to 
security at symfony-project.com

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "symfony developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-devs?hl=en

Reply via email to