Hi Wez,
I think the key is in forcing every commit to reference a ticket; that
way you can't "lose" a changeset by forgetting to put a bug number in
there.
Going back on-list... It's a good idea in principle, but I can foresee some
problems with it.
Many (most?) of the unnumbered fixes Ilia's been making have been
alterations to internal string or memory function calls. Generally those are
either performance or security changes, replicated throughout the code base
and starting with a single 'blast' aimed at upgrading everything, followed
by lots of smaller catch-up fixes over the next several weeks. This kind of
thing isn't really worthy of a bug report, unless you have an entirely new
concept of what a bug might be and allow for change types like
'maintenance', 'security' or 'performance' via the bug database somehow. The
nearest we've come to that recently is MOPB - everyone marked those fixes as
such - and occasionally coverity.
If the bug db allows it it might make sense to put an initial function
change as a 'maintenance' report with some explanation and a number, e.g.:
helly Sat Feb 24 18:20:46 2007 UTC
Modified files: (Branch: PHP_5_2)
/php-src/main snprintf.c snprintf.h
Log:
- Add [v]slprintf to overcome the returnvalues issue of snprintf
would get a fuller explanation on the report, and every subsequent
"snprintf() -> slprintf()" commit would reference that maintenance report
number. Fine, but what to do about "malloc() -> pemalloc()"? Would all
'maintenance' fixes require a test script? Wouldn't the need to check for a
maintenance number put devs off making a simple one-line fix?
Branch-specific fixes are generally (but not always) marked as such at
present. People tend to mention it in the 5_2 branch but not in 4_4.
- Steph
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
