Re: Proposal for a Backport tracker

[Abhishek L <abhishek.lekshmanan@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1356 bytes --]

Hi

Nathan Cutler writes:

>> * a backport issue is created in the "Backport" tracker and is 
>> "Related" to the original issue
>
> Hi Loic:
>
> I like the idea of having backport tickets in a separate Redmine
> subproject/issue tracker. In fact, I would go even a step further and
> have separate subprojects for each target version (hammer backports,
> firefly backports).

Agree with the idea of seperate subproject. Though I'm not having a
strong opinion on whether subprojects are needed for each version;
probably for issues which have multiple backports ie. backports to both
firefly & hammer for instance it might be a little bit more bookkeeping,
though from a maintainer standpoint; it is easier having a seperate
subproject, so either way is okay. 

> Having all, e.g. hammer, backports in one place is advantageous in
> pretty much every way I can think of: easier to see what has been
> done, what needs to be done, easier to search, easier to automate,
> less risk of munging something not related to backports...
>

Agree, from a scripting standpoint, we could develop some tools to ease
out the process better, which should it make it easier in backports down
the line.

> It also has the effect of removing all the backport-related tickets
> from the bug tracker(s).




>
> Nathan

-- 
Abhishek

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 489 bytes --]