bernie at codewiz.org
Tue May 11 10:21:31 EDT 2010
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 14:35 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> "Obsessed" and "pedantry" don't help at all in this discussion, please
> try to be fair to the people you discuss with and avoid adding
> unnecessary drama.
> If you don't help me reach consensus, I will just forget about this
> issue and keep doing my job.
I take this to mean "automatic bug updates are a must-have for me".
Ok, if nobody else volunteers to do it, I'll spend some time trying to
make it work. I personally don't think it's very useful, but it's also
not harmful as long as it's implemented with commit hooks so it doesn't
require all developers to install yet another special tool just to
contribute a patch to Sugar.
> Also, if people cannot find ways to improve the tools that support the
> new process, maybe it's better to stay with the old one for the time
Tools to do this aren't already available off the shelf, probably
because very few projects thought it was worth the time to write them.
In GCC, I've always been able to find the patch discussion in the
mailing-list archives by simply googling for some keywords.
Alternatively, one could grep the git log for the bug number.
In either case, it takes just a few seconds to reconstruct this
information without the help of a bug tracker.
// Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/
\X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/
More information about the Sugar-devel