You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geode.apache.org by Kirk Lund <kl...@pivotal.io> on 2016/02/26 19:36:31 UTC
Reminder: include GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in commit message
Please remember to include the GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in your commit
messages. I'm looking at git log on develop and I can't correlate several
checkins with any jira tickets.
Thanks,
Kirk
Re: Reminder: include GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in commit message
Posted by William Markito <wm...@pivotal.io>.
+1 to Dan's points.
[GEODE-XYZ] OR [DOCS] [WEBSITE] would be valid "tags" and could then
still be part of a hook to enforce proper formatting as well...
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> My opinion is that docs and minor changes to tests or build scripts don't
> need necessarily a JIRA. So I'm not sure we want to enforce this with a
> hook.
>
> That said, I definitely see commits in the log that look like product bug
> fixes, and I totally agree those should have ticket #s in the commit.
>
> Jason suggested something that I think might be a good idea - for changes
> that don't need a JIRA, maybe we can put some other tag in that spot. For
> example:
>
> DOCS: Update most occurrences of "Geode" to "Apache Geode".
>
> -Dan
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:34 PM, kareem shabazz <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Is it by design that there are no client-side Git hooks to prevent this
> > sort of thing?
> >
> > --
> > Kareem
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM -0800, "Kirk Lund" <kl...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please remember to include the GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in your commit
> > messages. I'm looking at git log on develop and I can't correlate several
> > checkins with any jira tickets.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kirk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
~/William
Re: Reminder: include GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in commit message
Posted by kareem shabazz <ka...@gmail.com>.
To add my two-cents, since I missed the party earlier, by way of example
from my own use cases. On my team every sprint/cycle we create an
over-arching "tech debt" epic which we close out at the end of the sprint.
Usually there is some tech debt that requires doing and a Jira task(s) is
created under this epic. For us updating/amending docs is part of tech debt
and it informs the larger picture of things - usually it means something
was missed. Updating of docs is usually part the Jira story (a separate
task) for the code that corresponds to the docs and is considered as part
of meeting the "definition of done".
For Geode, unless there is a new feature/enhancement/bug-fix being done
then there's a large quota of tech debt so creating an epic "tech debt" and
having numerous Jira tasks under it to cleanly tie in what was done for a
particular sprint. Doc changes would just fall inline as we know this is a
period of transition for Geode so there could be a number of tech debt
checkins that just include docs or more usually code and docs.
Sensibly things like typos can be consolidated into a single jira and then
put up for review and merged at the end of the cycle - assuming these typos
can't b done as part of some other checkin. Typos in themselves aren't
usually an urgent and necesary need like a bug-fix that may have to go in
pronto. Either way I think the policy should be set and everyone ack and
abide and move on for smooth sailing.
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Based on some off-line discussions, as well as this thread, I'm buying into
> the idea that all changes should follow the same rules. It's simpler that
> way and the additional overhead of crafting a JIRA ticket is minimal,
> really. [I'm assuming we won't run out of JIRA numbers anytime soon...]
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > For things like 'doc typos' we could consider a Jira that remains open
> for
> > a specific release or period of development and then gets closed at the
> end
> > of that cycle.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to Jake’s comment
> > >
> > > The number of “special cases” we’re talking about is pretty small
> > compared
> > > to the overall number commits. Even for doc typos it’s not a problem to
> > > submit a JIRA when you see the problem. I’d be inclined to open one
> JIRA
> > > for however many typos or minor textual errors I find on a read-through
> > or
> > > review of a doc.
> > >
> > > Ken
> > >
> > > > On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:42 PM, Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I withdraw the re-usable JIRA ticket suggestion - it was
> semi-facetious
> > > > anyway.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> +1
> > > >>
> > > >> All changes in the repo should have a ticket.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:21 AM Udo Kohlmeyer <
> ukohlmeyer@pivotal.io
> > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> My opinion is that no work should be done without a JIRA. That way
> > > there
> > > >>> is a "documentation" on what the task is and you can measure the
> > > outcome
> > > >>> based on the JIRA.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> One might think that one could end up in a scenario where we'd end
> up
> > > >>> creating JIRA's for the sake of creating JIRA's. But in the long
> run
> > > >>> those "trivial" tasks become less frequent.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I also thought that there was some unwritten rule that no changes
> > shall
> > > >>> be made directly in trunk/develop? ;)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 1/03/2016 6:05 am, Dan Smith wrote:
> > > >>>> My opinion is that docs and minor changes to tests or build
> scripts
> > > >> don't
> > > >>>> need necessarily a JIRA. So I'm not sure we want to enforce this
> > with
> > > a
> > > >>>> hook.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> That said, I definitely see commits in the log that look like
> > product
> > > >> bug
> > > >>>> fixes, and I totally agree those should have ticket #s in the
> > commit.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Jason suggested something that I think might be a good idea - for
> > > >> changes
> > > >>>> that don't need a JIRA, maybe we can put some other tag in that
> > spot.
> > > >> For
> > > >>>> example:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> DOCS: Update most occurrences of "Geode" to "Apache Geode".
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> -Dan
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:34 PM, kareem shabazz <
> > > >>> kareem.shabazz@gmail.com>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Is it by design that there are no client-side Git hooks to
> prevent
> > > >> this
> > > >>>>> sort of thing?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> --
> > > >>>>> Kareem
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM -0800, "Kirk Lund" <
> > > klund@pivotal.io
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Please remember to include the GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in your
> > commit
> > > >>>>> messages. I'm looking at git log on develop and I can't correlate
> > > >>> several
> > > >>>>> checkins with any jira tickets.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>> Kirk
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Kareem
Re: Reminder: include GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in commit message
Posted by Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io>.
Based on some off-line discussions, as well as this thread, I'm buying into
the idea that all changes should follow the same rules. It's simpler that
way and the additional overhead of crafting a JIRA ticket is minimal,
really. [I'm assuming we won't run out of JIRA numbers anytime soon...]
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> For things like 'doc typos' we could consider a Jira that remains open for
> a specific release or period of development and then gets closed at the end
> of that cycle.
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > +1 to Jake’s comment
> >
> > The number of “special cases” we’re talking about is pretty small
> compared
> > to the overall number commits. Even for doc typos it’s not a problem to
> > submit a JIRA when you see the problem. I’d be inclined to open one JIRA
> > for however many typos or minor textual errors I find on a read-through
> or
> > review of a doc.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > > On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:42 PM, Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > I withdraw the re-usable JIRA ticket suggestion - it was semi-facetious
> > > anyway.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> All changes in the repo should have a ticket.
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:21 AM Udo Kohlmeyer <ukohlmeyer@pivotal.io
> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> My opinion is that no work should be done without a JIRA. That way
> > there
> > >>> is a "documentation" on what the task is and you can measure the
> > outcome
> > >>> based on the JIRA.
> > >>>
> > >>> One might think that one could end up in a scenario where we'd end up
> > >>> creating JIRA's for the sake of creating JIRA's. But in the long run
> > >>> those "trivial" tasks become less frequent.
> > >>>
> > >>> I also thought that there was some unwritten rule that no changes
> shall
> > >>> be made directly in trunk/develop? ;)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 1/03/2016 6:05 am, Dan Smith wrote:
> > >>>> My opinion is that docs and minor changes to tests or build scripts
> > >> don't
> > >>>> need necessarily a JIRA. So I'm not sure we want to enforce this
> with
> > a
> > >>>> hook.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> That said, I definitely see commits in the log that look like
> product
> > >> bug
> > >>>> fixes, and I totally agree those should have ticket #s in the
> commit.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Jason suggested something that I think might be a good idea - for
> > >> changes
> > >>>> that don't need a JIRA, maybe we can put some other tag in that
> spot.
> > >> For
> > >>>> example:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> DOCS: Update most occurrences of "Geode" to "Apache Geode".
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -Dan
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:34 PM, kareem shabazz <
> > >>> kareem.shabazz@gmail.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Is it by design that there are no client-side Git hooks to prevent
> > >> this
> > >>>>> sort of thing?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> Kareem
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM -0800, "Kirk Lund" <
> > klund@pivotal.io
> > >>>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Please remember to include the GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in your
> commit
> > >>>>> messages. I'm looking at git log on develop and I can't correlate
> > >>> several
> > >>>>> checkins with any jira tickets.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>> Kirk
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Reminder: include GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in commit message
Posted by Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io>.
For things like 'doc typos' we could consider a Jira that remains open for
a specific release or period of development and then gets closed at the end
of that cycle.
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> +1 to Jake’s comment
>
> The number of “special cases” we’re talking about is pretty small compared
> to the overall number commits. Even for doc typos it’s not a problem to
> submit a JIRA when you see the problem. I’d be inclined to open one JIRA
> for however many typos or minor textual errors I find on a read-through or
> review of a doc.
>
> Ken
>
> > On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:42 PM, Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > I withdraw the re-usable JIRA ticket suggestion - it was semi-facetious
> > anyway.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> All changes in the repo should have a ticket.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:21 AM Udo Kohlmeyer <uk...@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> My opinion is that no work should be done without a JIRA. That way
> there
> >>> is a "documentation" on what the task is and you can measure the
> outcome
> >>> based on the JIRA.
> >>>
> >>> One might think that one could end up in a scenario where we'd end up
> >>> creating JIRA's for the sake of creating JIRA's. But in the long run
> >>> those "trivial" tasks become less frequent.
> >>>
> >>> I also thought that there was some unwritten rule that no changes shall
> >>> be made directly in trunk/develop? ;)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 1/03/2016 6:05 am, Dan Smith wrote:
> >>>> My opinion is that docs and minor changes to tests or build scripts
> >> don't
> >>>> need necessarily a JIRA. So I'm not sure we want to enforce this with
> a
> >>>> hook.
> >>>>
> >>>> That said, I definitely see commits in the log that look like product
> >> bug
> >>>> fixes, and I totally agree those should have ticket #s in the commit.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jason suggested something that I think might be a good idea - for
> >> changes
> >>>> that don't need a JIRA, maybe we can put some other tag in that spot.
> >> For
> >>>> example:
> >>>>
> >>>> DOCS: Update most occurrences of "Geode" to "Apache Geode".
> >>>>
> >>>> -Dan
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:34 PM, kareem shabazz <
> >>> kareem.shabazz@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Is it by design that there are no client-side Git hooks to prevent
> >> this
> >>>>> sort of thing?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Kareem
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM -0800, "Kirk Lund" <
> klund@pivotal.io
> >>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please remember to include the GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in your commit
> >>>>> messages. I'm looking at git log on develop and I can't correlate
> >>> several
> >>>>> checkins with any jira tickets.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Kirk
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: Reminder: include GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in commit message
Posted by Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io>.
+1 to Jake’s comment
The number of “special cases” we’re talking about is pretty small compared to the overall number commits. Even for doc typos it’s not a problem to submit a JIRA when you see the problem. I’d be inclined to open one JIRA for however many typos or minor textual errors I find on a read-through or review of a doc.
Ken
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:42 PM, Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> I withdraw the re-usable JIRA ticket suggestion - it was semi-facetious
> anyway.
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> All changes in the repo should have a ticket.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:21 AM Udo Kohlmeyer <uk...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My opinion is that no work should be done without a JIRA. That way there
>>> is a "documentation" on what the task is and you can measure the outcome
>>> based on the JIRA.
>>>
>>> One might think that one could end up in a scenario where we'd end up
>>> creating JIRA's for the sake of creating JIRA's. But in the long run
>>> those "trivial" tasks become less frequent.
>>>
>>> I also thought that there was some unwritten rule that no changes shall
>>> be made directly in trunk/develop? ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/03/2016 6:05 am, Dan Smith wrote:
>>>> My opinion is that docs and minor changes to tests or build scripts
>> don't
>>>> need necessarily a JIRA. So I'm not sure we want to enforce this with a
>>>> hook.
>>>>
>>>> That said, I definitely see commits in the log that look like product
>> bug
>>>> fixes, and I totally agree those should have ticket #s in the commit.
>>>>
>>>> Jason suggested something that I think might be a good idea - for
>> changes
>>>> that don't need a JIRA, maybe we can put some other tag in that spot.
>> For
>>>> example:
>>>>
>>>> DOCS: Update most occurrences of "Geode" to "Apache Geode".
>>>>
>>>> -Dan
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:34 PM, kareem shabazz <
>>> kareem.shabazz@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is it by design that there are no client-side Git hooks to prevent
>> this
>>>>> sort of thing?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Kareem
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM -0800, "Kirk Lund" <klund@pivotal.io
>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please remember to include the GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in your commit
>>>>> messages. I'm looking at git log on develop and I can't correlate
>>> several
>>>>> checkins with any jira tickets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Kirk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Reminder: include GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in commit message
Posted by Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io>.
I withdraw the re-usable JIRA ticket suggestion - it was semi-facetious
anyway.
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> +1
>
> All changes in the repo should have a ticket.
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:21 AM Udo Kohlmeyer <uk...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > My opinion is that no work should be done without a JIRA. That way there
> > is a "documentation" on what the task is and you can measure the outcome
> > based on the JIRA.
> >
> > One might think that one could end up in a scenario where we'd end up
> > creating JIRA's for the sake of creating JIRA's. But in the long run
> > those "trivial" tasks become less frequent.
> >
> > I also thought that there was some unwritten rule that no changes shall
> > be made directly in trunk/develop? ;)
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/03/2016 6:05 am, Dan Smith wrote:
> > > My opinion is that docs and minor changes to tests or build scripts
> don't
> > > need necessarily a JIRA. So I'm not sure we want to enforce this with a
> > > hook.
> > >
> > > That said, I definitely see commits in the log that look like product
> bug
> > > fixes, and I totally agree those should have ticket #s in the commit.
> > >
> > > Jason suggested something that I think might be a good idea - for
> changes
> > > that don't need a JIRA, maybe we can put some other tag in that spot.
> For
> > > example:
> > >
> > > DOCS: Update most occurrences of "Geode" to "Apache Geode".
> > >
> > > -Dan
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:34 PM, kareem shabazz <
> > kareem.shabazz@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Is it by design that there are no client-side Git hooks to prevent
> this
> > >> sort of thing?
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Kareem
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM -0800, "Kirk Lund" <klund@pivotal.io
> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Please remember to include the GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in your commit
> > >> messages. I'm looking at git log on develop and I can't correlate
> > several
> > >> checkins with any jira tickets.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Kirk
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Reminder: include GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in commit message
Posted by Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io>.
+1
All changes in the repo should have a ticket.
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:21 AM Udo Kohlmeyer <uk...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> My opinion is that no work should be done without a JIRA. That way there
> is a "documentation" on what the task is and you can measure the outcome
> based on the JIRA.
>
> One might think that one could end up in a scenario where we'd end up
> creating JIRA's for the sake of creating JIRA's. But in the long run
> those "trivial" tasks become less frequent.
>
> I also thought that there was some unwritten rule that no changes shall
> be made directly in trunk/develop? ;)
>
>
>
> On 1/03/2016 6:05 am, Dan Smith wrote:
> > My opinion is that docs and minor changes to tests or build scripts don't
> > need necessarily a JIRA. So I'm not sure we want to enforce this with a
> > hook.
> >
> > That said, I definitely see commits in the log that look like product bug
> > fixes, and I totally agree those should have ticket #s in the commit.
> >
> > Jason suggested something that I think might be a good idea - for changes
> > that don't need a JIRA, maybe we can put some other tag in that spot. For
> > example:
> >
> > DOCS: Update most occurrences of "Geode" to "Apache Geode".
> >
> > -Dan
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:34 PM, kareem shabazz <
> kareem.shabazz@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Is it by design that there are no client-side Git hooks to prevent this
> >> sort of thing?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Kareem
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM -0800, "Kirk Lund" <kl...@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Please remember to include the GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in your commit
> >> messages. I'm looking at git log on develop and I can't correlate
> several
> >> checkins with any jira tickets.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Kirk
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: Reminder: include GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in commit message
Posted by John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io>.
+1
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> IMO JIRA tickets are useful for two things:
>
> 1) Figuring out things that have to be done.
> 2) Figuring out things that got done.
>
> If something is important enough to show up in release notes, it should
> have a JIRA. This probably covers 99.9% of (non-docs) changes. I don’t
> think reusing JIRA’s makes sense.
>
> Anthony
>
>
> > On Feb 29, 2016, at 12:39 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer <uk...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > imo, small typo's could be managed through a single JIRA.
> > Of course the git commit comment should reflect what was done. Otherwise
> it becomes a blanket JIRA that could end up covering a very broad spectrum
> of work.
> >
> > But when even that JIRA should have an EOL. Maybe 1 broad JIRA for
> typo's per GA release (if required)?
> >
> > --Udo
> >
> > On 1/03/2016 7:33 am, Dave Barnes wrote:
> >> Docs are an important part of the product and over time we plan to
> migrate
> >> an increasing number of doc sources to the Apache Geode repo (or an
> allied
> >> repo in the Apache universe). While the workflow for docs often
> resembles
> >> that for code, there are also other case, such as typo repairs, that IMO
> >> don't really merit individual JIRA tickets.
> >> Would it be in harmony with the Apache Way to open a single JIRA ticket
> for
> >> 'doc typo repair,' keep it open, and re-use it over and over?
> >> That would spare us from creating dozens of identical JIRA tickets that
> >> differ only by number.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:39 AM, John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Spring projects, and in particular, Spring Data GemFire, we file
> JIRA
> >>> tickets and categorize them as "tasks". However, it not uncommon for
> a bug
> >>> (fix)/enhancement/new-feature to have code/test/documentation changes
> all
> >>> filed under a single JIRA. For example...
> >>>
> >>> SGF-123 - Improve feature X... // includes code changes/tests, maybe
> doc
> >>> changes
> >>> SGF-123 - Add additional test for use case/scenario...
> >>> SGF-123 - Update documentation...
> >>>
> >>> etc
> >>>
> >>> -John
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer <ukohlmeyer@pivotal.io
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> My opinion is that no work should be done without a JIRA. That way
> there
> >>>> is a "documentation" on what the task is and you can measure the
> outcome
> >>>> based on the JIRA.
> >>>>
> >>>> One might think that one could end up in a scenario where we'd end up
> >>>> creating JIRA's for the sake of creating JIRA's. But in the long run
> >>> those
> >>>> "trivial" tasks become less frequent.
> >>>>
> >>>> I also thought that there was some unwritten rule that no changes
> shall
> >>> be
> >>>> made directly in trunk/develop? ;)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 1/03/2016 6:05 am, Dan Smith wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> My opinion is that docs and minor changes to tests or build scripts
> >>> don't
> >>>>> need necessarily a JIRA. So I'm not sure we want to enforce this
> with a
> >>>>> hook.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That said, I definitely see commits in the log that look like product
> >>> bug
> >>>>> fixes, and I totally agree those should have ticket #s in the commit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jason suggested something that I think might be a good idea - for
> >>> changes
> >>>>> that don't need a JIRA, maybe we can put some other tag in that spot.
> >>> For
> >>>>> example:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> DOCS: Update most occurrences of "Geode" to "Apache Geode".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Dan
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:34 PM, kareem shabazz <
> >>> kareem.shabazz@gmail.com
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is it by design that there are no client-side Git hooks to prevent
> this
> >>>>>> sort of thing?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Kareem
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM -0800, "Kirk Lund" <
> klund@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please remember to include the GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in your
> commit
> >>>>>> messages. I'm looking at git log on develop and I can't correlate
> >>> several
> >>>>>> checkins with any jira tickets.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Kirk
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> -John
> >>> 503-504-8657
> >>> john.blum10101 (skype)
> >>>
> >
>
>
--
-John
503-504-8657
john.blum10101 (skype)
Re: Reminder: include GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in commit message
Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
IMO JIRA tickets are useful for two things:
1) Figuring out things that have to be done.
2) Figuring out things that got done.
If something is important enough to show up in release notes, it should have a JIRA. This probably covers 99.9% of (non-docs) changes. I don’t think reusing JIRA’s makes sense.
Anthony
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 12:39 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer <uk...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> imo, small typo's could be managed through a single JIRA.
> Of course the git commit comment should reflect what was done. Otherwise it becomes a blanket JIRA that could end up covering a very broad spectrum of work.
>
> But when even that JIRA should have an EOL. Maybe 1 broad JIRA for typo's per GA release (if required)?
>
> --Udo
>
> On 1/03/2016 7:33 am, Dave Barnes wrote:
>> Docs are an important part of the product and over time we plan to migrate
>> an increasing number of doc sources to the Apache Geode repo (or an allied
>> repo in the Apache universe). While the workflow for docs often resembles
>> that for code, there are also other case, such as typo repairs, that IMO
>> don't really merit individual JIRA tickets.
>> Would it be in harmony with the Apache Way to open a single JIRA ticket for
>> 'doc typo repair,' keep it open, and re-use it over and over?
>> That would spare us from creating dozens of identical JIRA tickets that
>> differ only by number.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:39 AM, John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>
>>> On Spring projects, and in particular, Spring Data GemFire, we file JIRA
>>> tickets and categorize them as "tasks". However, it not uncommon for a bug
>>> (fix)/enhancement/new-feature to have code/test/documentation changes all
>>> filed under a single JIRA. For example...
>>>
>>> SGF-123 - Improve feature X... // includes code changes/tests, maybe doc
>>> changes
>>> SGF-123 - Add additional test for use case/scenario...
>>> SGF-123 - Update documentation...
>>>
>>> etc
>>>
>>> -John
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer <uk...@pivotal.io>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My opinion is that no work should be done without a JIRA. That way there
>>>> is a "documentation" on what the task is and you can measure the outcome
>>>> based on the JIRA.
>>>>
>>>> One might think that one could end up in a scenario where we'd end up
>>>> creating JIRA's for the sake of creating JIRA's. But in the long run
>>> those
>>>> "trivial" tasks become less frequent.
>>>>
>>>> I also thought that there was some unwritten rule that no changes shall
>>> be
>>>> made directly in trunk/develop? ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/03/2016 6:05 am, Dan Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My opinion is that docs and minor changes to tests or build scripts
>>> don't
>>>>> need necessarily a JIRA. So I'm not sure we want to enforce this with a
>>>>> hook.
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, I definitely see commits in the log that look like product
>>> bug
>>>>> fixes, and I totally agree those should have ticket #s in the commit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jason suggested something that I think might be a good idea - for
>>> changes
>>>>> that don't need a JIRA, maybe we can put some other tag in that spot.
>>> For
>>>>> example:
>>>>>
>>>>> DOCS: Update most occurrences of "Geode" to "Apache Geode".
>>>>>
>>>>> -Dan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:34 PM, kareem shabazz <
>>> kareem.shabazz@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it by design that there are no client-side Git hooks to prevent this
>>>>>> sort of thing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Kareem
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM -0800, "Kirk Lund" <kl...@pivotal.io>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please remember to include the GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in your commit
>>>>>> messages. I'm looking at git log on develop and I can't correlate
>>> several
>>>>>> checkins with any jira tickets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Kirk
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -John
>>> 503-504-8657
>>> john.blum10101 (skype)
>>>
>
Re: Reminder: include GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in commit message
Posted by Udo Kohlmeyer <uk...@pivotal.io>.
imo, small typo's could be managed through a single JIRA.
Of course the git commit comment should reflect what was done. Otherwise
it becomes a blanket JIRA that could end up covering a very broad
spectrum of work.
But when even that JIRA should have an EOL. Maybe 1 broad JIRA for
typo's per GA release (if required)?
--Udo
On 1/03/2016 7:33 am, Dave Barnes wrote:
> Docs are an important part of the product and over time we plan to migrate
> an increasing number of doc sources to the Apache Geode repo (or an allied
> repo in the Apache universe). While the workflow for docs often resembles
> that for code, there are also other case, such as typo repairs, that IMO
> don't really merit individual JIRA tickets.
> Would it be in harmony with the Apache Way to open a single JIRA ticket for
> 'doc typo repair,' keep it open, and re-use it over and over?
> That would spare us from creating dozens of identical JIRA tickets that
> differ only by number.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:39 AM, John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
>> On Spring projects, and in particular, Spring Data GemFire, we file JIRA
>> tickets and categorize them as "tasks". However, it not uncommon for a bug
>> (fix)/enhancement/new-feature to have code/test/documentation changes all
>> filed under a single JIRA. For example...
>>
>> SGF-123 - Improve feature X... // includes code changes/tests, maybe doc
>> changes
>> SGF-123 - Add additional test for use case/scenario...
>> SGF-123 - Update documentation...
>>
>> etc
>>
>> -John
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer <uk...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My opinion is that no work should be done without a JIRA. That way there
>>> is a "documentation" on what the task is and you can measure the outcome
>>> based on the JIRA.
>>>
>>> One might think that one could end up in a scenario where we'd end up
>>> creating JIRA's for the sake of creating JIRA's. But in the long run
>> those
>>> "trivial" tasks become less frequent.
>>>
>>> I also thought that there was some unwritten rule that no changes shall
>> be
>>> made directly in trunk/develop? ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/03/2016 6:05 am, Dan Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> My opinion is that docs and minor changes to tests or build scripts
>> don't
>>>> need necessarily a JIRA. So I'm not sure we want to enforce this with a
>>>> hook.
>>>>
>>>> That said, I definitely see commits in the log that look like product
>> bug
>>>> fixes, and I totally agree those should have ticket #s in the commit.
>>>>
>>>> Jason suggested something that I think might be a good idea - for
>> changes
>>>> that don't need a JIRA, maybe we can put some other tag in that spot.
>> For
>>>> example:
>>>>
>>>> DOCS: Update most occurrences of "Geode" to "Apache Geode".
>>>>
>>>> -Dan
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:34 PM, kareem shabazz <
>> kareem.shabazz@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is it by design that there are no client-side Git hooks to prevent this
>>>>> sort of thing?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Kareem
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM -0800, "Kirk Lund" <kl...@pivotal.io>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please remember to include the GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in your commit
>>>>> messages. I'm looking at git log on develop and I can't correlate
>> several
>>>>> checkins with any jira tickets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Kirk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>> --
>> -John
>> 503-504-8657
>> john.blum10101 (skype)
>>
Re: Reminder: include GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in commit message
Posted by Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io>.
Docs are an important part of the product and over time we plan to migrate
an increasing number of doc sources to the Apache Geode repo (or an allied
repo in the Apache universe). While the workflow for docs often resembles
that for code, there are also other case, such as typo repairs, that IMO
don't really merit individual JIRA tickets.
Would it be in harmony with the Apache Way to open a single JIRA ticket for
'doc typo repair,' keep it open, and re-use it over and over?
That would spare us from creating dozens of identical JIRA tickets that
differ only by number.
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:39 AM, John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> On Spring projects, and in particular, Spring Data GemFire, we file JIRA
> tickets and categorize them as "tasks". However, it not uncommon for a bug
> (fix)/enhancement/new-feature to have code/test/documentation changes all
> filed under a single JIRA. For example...
>
> SGF-123 - Improve feature X... // includes code changes/tests, maybe doc
> changes
> SGF-123 - Add additional test for use case/scenario...
> SGF-123 - Update documentation...
>
> etc
>
> -John
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer <uk...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > My opinion is that no work should be done without a JIRA. That way there
> > is a "documentation" on what the task is and you can measure the outcome
> > based on the JIRA.
> >
> > One might think that one could end up in a scenario where we'd end up
> > creating JIRA's for the sake of creating JIRA's. But in the long run
> those
> > "trivial" tasks become less frequent.
> >
> > I also thought that there was some unwritten rule that no changes shall
> be
> > made directly in trunk/develop? ;)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/03/2016 6:05 am, Dan Smith wrote:
> >
> >> My opinion is that docs and minor changes to tests or build scripts
> don't
> >> need necessarily a JIRA. So I'm not sure we want to enforce this with a
> >> hook.
> >>
> >> That said, I definitely see commits in the log that look like product
> bug
> >> fixes, and I totally agree those should have ticket #s in the commit.
> >>
> >> Jason suggested something that I think might be a good idea - for
> changes
> >> that don't need a JIRA, maybe we can put some other tag in that spot.
> For
> >> example:
> >>
> >> DOCS: Update most occurrences of "Geode" to "Apache Geode".
> >>
> >> -Dan
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:34 PM, kareem shabazz <
> kareem.shabazz@gmail.com
> >> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Is it by design that there are no client-side Git hooks to prevent this
> >>> sort of thing?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Kareem
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM -0800, "Kirk Lund" <kl...@pivotal.io>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please remember to include the GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in your commit
> >>> messages. I'm looking at git log on develop and I can't correlate
> several
> >>> checkins with any jira tickets.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Kirk
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>
> --
> -John
> 503-504-8657
> john.blum10101 (skype)
>
Re: Reminder: include GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in commit message
Posted by John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io>.
On Spring projects, and in particular, Spring Data GemFire, we file JIRA
tickets and categorize them as "tasks". However, it not uncommon for a bug
(fix)/enhancement/new-feature to have code/test/documentation changes all
filed under a single JIRA. For example...
SGF-123 - Improve feature X... // includes code changes/tests, maybe doc
changes
SGF-123 - Add additional test for use case/scenario...
SGF-123 - Update documentation...
etc
-John
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer <uk...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> My opinion is that no work should be done without a JIRA. That way there
> is a "documentation" on what the task is and you can measure the outcome
> based on the JIRA.
>
> One might think that one could end up in a scenario where we'd end up
> creating JIRA's for the sake of creating JIRA's. But in the long run those
> "trivial" tasks become less frequent.
>
> I also thought that there was some unwritten rule that no changes shall be
> made directly in trunk/develop? ;)
>
>
>
>
> On 1/03/2016 6:05 am, Dan Smith wrote:
>
>> My opinion is that docs and minor changes to tests or build scripts don't
>> need necessarily a JIRA. So I'm not sure we want to enforce this with a
>> hook.
>>
>> That said, I definitely see commits in the log that look like product bug
>> fixes, and I totally agree those should have ticket #s in the commit.
>>
>> Jason suggested something that I think might be a good idea - for changes
>> that don't need a JIRA, maybe we can put some other tag in that spot. For
>> example:
>>
>> DOCS: Update most occurrences of "Geode" to "Apache Geode".
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:34 PM, kareem shabazz <kareem.shabazz@gmail.com
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> Is it by design that there are no client-side Git hooks to prevent this
>>> sort of thing?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kareem
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM -0800, "Kirk Lund" <kl...@pivotal.io>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please remember to include the GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in your commit
>>> messages. I'm looking at git log on develop and I can't correlate several
>>> checkins with any jira tickets.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kirk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
--
-John
503-504-8657
john.blum10101 (skype)
Re: Reminder: include GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in commit message
Posted by Udo Kohlmeyer <uk...@pivotal.io>.
My opinion is that no work should be done without a JIRA. That way there
is a "documentation" on what the task is and you can measure the outcome
based on the JIRA.
One might think that one could end up in a scenario where we'd end up
creating JIRA's for the sake of creating JIRA's. But in the long run
those "trivial" tasks become less frequent.
I also thought that there was some unwritten rule that no changes shall
be made directly in trunk/develop? ;)
On 1/03/2016 6:05 am, Dan Smith wrote:
> My opinion is that docs and minor changes to tests or build scripts don't
> need necessarily a JIRA. So I'm not sure we want to enforce this with a
> hook.
>
> That said, I definitely see commits in the log that look like product bug
> fixes, and I totally agree those should have ticket #s in the commit.
>
> Jason suggested something that I think might be a good idea - for changes
> that don't need a JIRA, maybe we can put some other tag in that spot. For
> example:
>
> DOCS: Update most occurrences of "Geode" to "Apache Geode".
>
> -Dan
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:34 PM, kareem shabazz <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Is it by design that there are no client-side Git hooks to prevent this
>> sort of thing?
>>
>> --
>> Kareem
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM -0800, "Kirk Lund" <kl...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Please remember to include the GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in your commit
>> messages. I'm looking at git log on develop and I can't correlate several
>> checkins with any jira tickets.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kirk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: Reminder: include GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in commit message
Posted by Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>.
My opinion is that docs and minor changes to tests or build scripts don't
need necessarily a JIRA. So I'm not sure we want to enforce this with a
hook.
That said, I definitely see commits in the log that look like product bug
fixes, and I totally agree those should have ticket #s in the commit.
Jason suggested something that I think might be a good idea - for changes
that don't need a JIRA, maybe we can put some other tag in that spot. For
example:
DOCS: Update most occurrences of "Geode" to "Apache Geode".
-Dan
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:34 PM, kareem shabazz <ka...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Is it by design that there are no client-side Git hooks to prevent this
> sort of thing?
>
> --
> Kareem
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM -0800, "Kirk Lund" <kl...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please remember to include the GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in your commit
> messages. I'm looking at git log on develop and I can't correlate several
> checkins with any jira tickets.
>
> Thanks,
> Kirk
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Reminder: include GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in commit message
Posted by kareem shabazz <ka...@gmail.com>.
Is it by design that there are no client-side Git hooks to prevent this sort of thing?
--
Kareem
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM -0800, "Kirk Lund" <kl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
Please remember to include the GEODE-xxx jira ticket # in your commit
messages. I'm looking at git log on develop and I can't correlate several
checkins with any jira tickets.
Thanks,
Kirk