13 Nov
2011
13 Nov
'11
7:47 p.m.
Le 10/11/2011 21:39, Chris Nighswonger a écrit : > Hi all, > > While we are proposing changes to workflow, etc. I would like to > propose that we standardize the manner in which we reference bug > numbers in our commit messages. Lately I have been working on scripts > to semi-automate the generation of release notes and having a standard > reference to bug numbers would greatly simplify munging through git > log and extracting them. > > So I propose that we use the form: [BZX...X] I love this idea ! For many reasons: * I already use BZXXX ;-) (OK, it's a wrong reason) * Not every patch is a bug, so BZ is related to bugzilla, not bug * it takes only 2 chars, where "Bug XXXX" takes 4. In (many) places where only a part of the bug message is displayed, those 2 chars are usefull * Companies like BibLibre uses another tool to track customers bugs (Mantis). So all our internal bugs are prefixed "MTXXXX" where MT is the mantis number. I know that Catalyst uses WRMS, ByWater bugzilla, and there are probably more. We (at BibLibre) make sometimes a mistake because one of us says "bug 5432". The other search in bugzilla, while the speaker was speaking of Mantis ! (maybe that's also because we are in the same array of number in Mantis as we're in bugzilla...) PROPOSAL: Why not having each company "reserve" a prefix, thus we would know that WRMS5432 => Catalyst internal bug number. BW5432 => ByWaterSolutions BZ5432 => koha-community bugzilla number -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08