|
From: | Trevor Daniels |
Subject: | Re: summarizing patches for review (was: Gets rid of length in the docs. (issue 4965053)) |
Date: | Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:56:02 +0100 |
Graham, you wrote Wednesday, August 31, 2011 6:11 AM
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:25:27PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:Graham, you wrote Tuesday, August 30, 2011 2:43 AM >LARGE PATCHES > >SHORT PATCHES I think just CODE PATCHES for these. It's hard to think of a meaningful difference. Number of affected files, number of changed lines, lines of changes C++ and/or scm?Combination of all the above? I don't want to have any criteria that would take a non-programmer more than 10 seconds to decide which a patch falls into. But I'm fine with just CODE PATCHES.
Yes, that's what I meant. Although I have a preference now for the following ...
Or maybe split into ENHANCEMENTS and BUG FIXES. Enhancements generally will require more thought and discussion.Will it be obvious to a non-programmer (i.e the patch meister) todecide which is which?
If the patch is related to an issue then the issue Type should indicate whether it is an enhancement or not. I suggest Type-enhancement and Type-other and any patches which don't have a related issue should be listed as ENHANCEMENTS. Anything else as BUG FIXES. I think Colin already inspects the related issue, so that shouldn't be much more work. Trevor
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |