On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Paul Poulain
<paul.poulain@biblibre.com> wrote:
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