On 16 August 2013 20:15, Maru Newby <ma...@redhat.com> wrote: >> This pattern has one slight issue, which is: >> >> • Do not assume the reviewer has access to external web services/site. >> In 6 months time when someone is on a train/plane/coach/beach/pub >> troubleshooting a problem & browsing GIT history, there is no guarantee they >> will have access to the online bug tracker, or online blueprint documents. >> The great step forward with distributed SCM is that you no longer need to be >> "online" to have access to all information about the code repository. The >> commit message should be totally self-contained, to maintain that benefit. > > I'm not sure I agree with this. It can't be true in all cases, so it can > hardly be considered a rule. A guideline, maybe - something to strive for. > But not all artifacts of the development process are amenable to being > stuffed into code or the commits associated with them. A dvcs is great and > all, but unless one is working in a silo, online resources are all but > mandatory.
In a very strict sense you're right, but consider that for anyone doing fast iterative development the need to go hit a website is a huge slowdown : at least in most of the world :). So - while I agree that it's something to strive for, I think we should invert it and say 'not having everything in the repo is something we should permit occasional exceptions to'. -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
