Re: [boost] [test] boost.test owner unresponsive to persistent problems for multiple years

Subject: Re: [boost] [test] boost.test owner unresponsive to persistent problems for multiple years
From: Klaim - Joël Lamotte (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-30 05:32:44

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Gennadiy Rozental <rogeeff_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> Tim Blechmann <tim <at> klingt.org> writes:
>
> > b) 'blanked update messages' about anything that is done on an a develop
> > branch, is useless for people who are submitting
> > and/or watching tickets.
>
> When one is expected to close the ticket? When fix is checked into devel or
> when fix is merges into master? Former is better for developer who can put
> the trac number into commit message and be done with it. Later is better
> for users, since there always will be some gap between commit and master
> merge. Yet it requires more effort/discipline from developer. I am not
> convinced which one is better. Maybe we can mark ticket as fixed at commit
> time, and make it merged/publically available when fix is merged to master.
> Can we tweak trac/svn hooks so that we introduce another state change?
>

You don't need to close the ticket to update it by:
 - stating in the comments that it is fixed in develop branch
 - changing the "milstone" to the next release version (as develop will be
merged at some point)

It is common practice in tickets usage and help users (like me)
what should be fixed when or not.

Regular releases of isolated features would be helpful too.