AW: [geclipse-dev] Submitting patches

["Stuempert, Mathias IWR" <mathias.stuempert@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi All,

Ok, basically I agree both to Markus and to Ariel. So forget about my idea of having separate patch items for a specific bug item. Nevertheless I would prefer to have a keyword at least for pure patch items. Even if this would duplicate features it would make things easier for committers that have to deal with a lot of patches.

Since this is equivalent to my first proposition I think the +1s that came from various people are still valid for this. In order to let the discussion not grow too much I would then say that if there are no other objections any more we should go for the [patch] keyword. So if this is not ok for you please shout loud now or be silent forever ;-)

Cheers, Mathias

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: geclipse-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:geclipse-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Ariel Garcia
Gesendet: Montag, 16. Juli 2007 16:47
An: geclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [geclipse-dev] Submitting patches

Hi,

> Yes, that's one reason *not* to maintain this redundant information in
> the database.

i am lost... yes to what?  ;-)

It is OK for me to add some "tag" or pseudo-tag like [patch] in the title 
if the bug is _opened by a contributor_  as the way to get his code 
integrated into the SVN repo. 
Normal ("real") bugs which later get patches submitted shouldn't get their 
title changed (if at all possible in BZ)  or a second bug be opened just 
to contain the patch!

SO: 
   +1 for [patch] if contributor just wants to get a patch included
   -1  for extra/duplicate bugs just for patches
   -1 for changing the bug title

:-)

> As an example use this URL to create a list of open g-Eclipse bugs with
> attached patches:
>
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_de
...

well that one finds just 3 bugs, so these are definitely not all bugs with 
patches ;-)

> But I also have bug-items, which are really bugs. And after fixing this
> bug I have to create patch. Should I add "[patch]" to the title also in
> this case?

all _real_ bugs are supposed to end up in a bugfix at some point. And it 
doesn't make sense to start with [patch] all the bug reports.

So, no, Markus solution of using the search functionality in Bugzilla is 
the only reasonable one in my opinion. Why duplicate info.

> I suggest creating a new bug-item for the patch in which you refer to
> the original bug report. And on the other hand you also should then
> refer from the bug report to the patch item when marking it as fixed.
> Objections?

oh, yes, me! ;-)  having to create a second bug and crossref them both 
toghether makes for a lot of overhead and it is very error prone 
(forgetting to add the ref number in one makes life complicated already)

Ariel
_______________________________________________
geclipse-dev mailing list
geclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/geclipse-dev