You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@whimsical.apache.org by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> on 2017/06/17 14:59:26 UTC
Re: [whimsy] branch master updated: Typo; add TODO
On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:18 AM, <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
>
> sebb pushed a commit to branch master
> in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/whimsy.git
>
>
> The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
> new 67727b7 Typo; add TODO
> 67727b7 is described below
>
> commit 67727b71c420f431c6ed8dfd1fac5ec9ad6b54ea
> Author: Sebb <se...@apache.org>
> AuthorDate: Sat Jun 17 15:18:56 2017 +0100
>
> Typo; add TODO
> ---
> www/roster/views/actions/ppmc.json.rb | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/www/roster/views/actions/ppmc.json.rb b/www/roster/views/actions/ppmc.json.rb
> index a40bf0e..682a4f1 100644
> --- a/www/roster/views/actions/ppmc.json.rb
> +++ b/www/roster/views/actions/ppmc.json.rb
> @@ -26,7 +26,9 @@ if env.password
>
> # when adding a commiter to a podling, also add the commiter to
> # the incubator. For removals, remove the individual as an
> - # incubator committer when they are not a commiter for andy podling
> + # incubator committer when they are not a committer for any podling
> + # TODO is that correct? What if they need general incubator karma?
> + # should probably not remove the commit bit from incubator members
> if @targets.include? 'icommit' or @targets.include? 'committer'
> incubator = ASF::Project.find('incubator')
> icommit = incubator.members
I just implemented what was ultimately agreed to on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WHIMSY-90.
Meta question: I'm not certain how to handle/prevent/resolve these
type of TODOs. Should the code have a link to the JIRA request?
Should the question have been asked on the dev list or via a JIRA?
While I would prefer the discussion return back to the JIRA (reopening
if necessary), summarily deleting the TODO in favor of such doesn't
seem appropriate.
- Sam Ruby
Re: [whimsy] branch master updated: Typo; add TODO
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 17 June 2017 at 15:59, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:18 AM, <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>> This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
>>
>> sebb pushed a commit to branch master
>> in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/whimsy.git
>>
>>
>> The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
>> new 67727b7 Typo; add TODO
>> 67727b7 is described below
>>
>> commit 67727b71c420f431c6ed8dfd1fac5ec9ad6b54ea
>> Author: Sebb <se...@apache.org>
>> AuthorDate: Sat Jun 17 15:18:56 2017 +0100
>>
>> Typo; add TODO
>> ---
>> www/roster/views/actions/ppmc.json.rb | 4 +++-
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/www/roster/views/actions/ppmc.json.rb b/www/roster/views/actions/ppmc.json.rb
>> index a40bf0e..682a4f1 100644
>> --- a/www/roster/views/actions/ppmc.json.rb
>> +++ b/www/roster/views/actions/ppmc.json.rb
>> @@ -26,7 +26,9 @@ if env.password
>>
>> # when adding a commiter to a podling, also add the commiter to
>> # the incubator. For removals, remove the individual as an
>> - # incubator committer when they are not a commiter for andy podling
>> + # incubator committer when they are not a committer for any podling
>> + # TODO is that correct? What if they need general incubator karma?
>> + # should probably not remove the commit bit from incubator members
>> if @targets.include? 'icommit' or @targets.include? 'committer'
>> incubator = ASF::Project.find('incubator')
>> icommit = incubator.members
>
> I just implemented what was ultimately agreed to on
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WHIMSY-90.
>
> Meta question: I'm not certain how to handle/prevent/resolve these
> type of TODOs. Should the code have a link to the JIRA request?
> Should the question have been asked on the dev list or via a JIRA?
> While I would prefer the discussion return back to the JIRA (reopening
> if necessary), summarily deleting the TODO in favor of such doesn't
> seem appropriate.
I just wanted to capture the potential issue before I forgot.
I intended to go back to it at some point.
At which time it would either be dropped (with explanation why no longer needed)
or linked to JIRA (new or existing).
If it turns out that the concern is unfounded, the link can be dropped.
But otherwise I think the link needs to be kept and/or comments added
to document the resolution.
Otherwise a future maintainer may have the same thought and wonder why
it was not addressed.
In this case it looks as though the second part (not dropping members)
is handled in the code
(but is absent from the comment - I'll fix that).
I suspect the first part may be insoluble.
In which case the code should note the restriction with a link to the JIRA.
> - Sam Ruby