Hi Maru, Thanks, that approach seems reasonable to me. My concern was indeed about what you classify as functional commits (even if it seems like a trivial one-liner).
Thanks, ~Sumit. On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Maru Newby <mne...@internap.com> wrote: > Hi Sumit, > > I suggest we not require a blueprint/bug association for every commit. > All functional commits, yes, but having blueprints/bugs for non-functional > commits (which can often be trivial in nature) would seem a waste of time > and effort. What constitutes non-functional would be left to core > reviewers to decide. > > A couple of things that I would rather not require bp/bugs for: > > - non-functional refactoring (including test addition) > - doc/i18n changes (including spelling and clarification) > > Thanks, > > > Maru > > On 2012-12-19, at 10:39 AM, Sumit Naiksatam <sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > My understanding has been from the very beginning that we have a policy > of associating every submitted review with a blueprint or a bug. Is it > still the case? > > > > If not, it would be a good policy to enforce since it helps to track > issues. Off late I did see some patches which don't have this information > associated. > > > > Thanks, > > ~Sumit. > > -- > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core > > Post to : quantum-core@lists.launchpad.net > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core Post to : quantum-core@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
