COmanage Developers List

[Benn Oshrin <>]

I think that's in the category of "use your judgment". Some of the 
descriptions are clearly not worthy of tickets, some are ambiguous. 
However, (eg) there are several home page/front page commits that should 
probably have been tied to a common JIRA issue.

Another reason to err on the side of linking to tickets is that it 
allows us to track the funding source for particular work. (In theory 
we're labeling JIRA issues with funding sources, though I'm not sure 
we've been following that 100%, either.)

Thanks,

-Benn-

On 3/28/15 6:30 AM, Arlen Johnson wrote:
> ooh - true. I try to always include a pointer to the ticket if one
> exists.  In many of these cases, small fixes got committed that have no
> specific ticket associated with them. So I'm guessing we should create a
> ticket to document the change if none exists or point at a ticket that
> is closely associated and add a comment about the change in every case.
> Is that right?
>
> A
>
>
> On 3/28/15 2:10 AM, Benn Oshrin wrote:
> > Commit messages should include both a description and a JIRA issue. See
> >
> >  https://github.com/Internet2/comanage-registry/commits/develop
> >
> > for why. eg: Scott committed a fix for CO-1047. What was CO-1047? I
> > have to go to JIRA to find out. But if I'm quickly scanning for an
> > issue that's hard/annoying to do.
> >
> > Meanwhile Arlen pushed a bunch of changes, but I have no idea what
> > tickets they were for so I can't figure out the context.
> >
> > Obviously, use your judgment where appropriate. For example, a very
> > small fix doesn't require a JIRA issue, and if you're doing a second
> > commit to fix something you just committed you can abbreviate.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -Benn-