On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Bryan Davis <bd808(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
The point wouldn't be to have a direct one-to-one
correlation between phab
tickets and each commit,
That's good, because I find I often fix multiple related bugs with a large
commit.
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/187840/ would take care of
three, if the other two ("change password" and "change email") were to
be
filed. Maybe 4 if you count working on the "refactor 'business logic' out
of special pages" technical debt bug we might have floating around
somewhere.
And in the other direction there would be stuff like
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/q/branch:master+topic:api-cleanup-results,…,
37 "update $extension for core change" tasks and then customizing the
commit summaries for each would probably be a big waste of time.
but to have some traceability about the larger goals that each unit of work
is intended to serve.
I don't think filing phab tasks for "I have to clean this up because my
eyes are bleeding" would necessarily be better than a good commit summary
as far as indicating what goal the patch is supposed to be solving. As in
"when I've felt the need to do this in the past, I often used basically the
same text for the task and the commit summary". On the other hand, I tend
to be more verbose in my commit summaries.
And in some cases (e.g.
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/187150/), filing
a task could take longer than it did to make the commit in the first place.
--
Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
Software Engineer
Wikimedia Foundation