Re: [boost] Patches in trac...

Subject: Re: [boost] Patches in trac...
From: Marshall Clow (marshall_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-08 13:12:06

At 8:56 PM +0400 4/8/09, Vladimir Prus wrote:
>Marshall Clow wrote:
>
>  > Don't get me wrong - patches are a good thing.
>  > However, if a submitted patch fixes a problem, it should be
>  > categorized as a "bug report" with a fix attached. And if a patch
>  > adds new functionality, it should be categorized as a "feature
>  > request" with a proposed implementation attached.
>  >
>  > The conclusion that was reached at the end of the discussion was that
>>  we wanted to get rid of the "Patches" label for Trac tickets, and to
>>  move all the existing patches to either "Bugs" or "Feature Requests".
>>
>>  I am proposing that this happen immediately after the release of
>>  version 1.39 - or immediately after BoostCon, say.
>>
>>  What do people think?
>
>I am no sure this is good idea. Patches should be explicitly marked, 
>and further, should be
>given priority treatment -- and mixing them with Bug/Feature Request
>will make it hard to even see what is patch.

Patches are _not_ being given priority treatment now.
There are about 75 tickets marked as 'Patches' in Trac now.

15 were opened in 2009
32 were opened in 2008
26 were opened in 2007
2 were opened in 2006

Here's an example:
        <https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/827>
opened Feb 2007. It's a patch to remove an unused variable in date-time.

I don't have a problem with some way of marking a ticket that has an 
attached patch.
But I don't think that "Patch" tag is the way to do it. It hides 
other, more useful information.

-- 
-- Marshall
Marshall Clow     Idio Software   <mailto:marshall_at_[hidden]>
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.