From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [Opinions] Integrated tickets Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 10:24:23 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20141105124429.GF15384@paksenarrion.iveqy.com> <54620522.4060600@ira.uka.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Fredrik Gustafsson , git@vger.kernel.org To: Holger Hellmuth X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Nov 11 19:24:35 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XoG7G-000084-8r for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 19:24:34 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751738AbaKKSY1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:24:27 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.int.icgroup.com ([208.72.237.35]:52925 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751673AbaKKSY0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:24:26 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B53241B7D0; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:24:25 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=BQ740tuK4I4FOz8l7rrzvO7p+CQ=; b=O7Jt4O BojgYZQYs4Pi55m3Ucx9Hjz3GaVsLh3i2w/5SdIpzCM0UiYBbxanQJe812k4WgFA JG8tTIYOlM+cEMwWMpSUBogdFcqcclL/BH6uSIH1VQdBENaYjlJnxYFyCRCpcg4t kueQK4eFFw5psXr3s++ApQHjGoSiEznG8NInU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=LzD8B2WK1WbjqUtGbxYjvXN/IKpepn57 CTmMLPVjg9SwjQoMpFUe5vLz+gxIKJ44tgy7r/71oVuQZjY6MviUpYYJK3gxSmyR rQofEP0Q8TQxH/1kh4RjW8HCk0EBtyVKz8JGMoaH8POczyCPba1pXpKsoxSiv7RT y8QP/Qh7yNM= Received: from pb-smtp1.int.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABF2B1B7CF; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:24:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [72.14.226.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 34F4C1B7CE; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:24:25 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Tue, 11 Nov 2014 09:17:59 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F7121E9A-69CF-11E4-B73D-42529F42C9D4-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > Either way, I do not see how such an arrangement is the most > convenient way to organize the tickets and ask questions such as > "what are the known, untriaged, or unresolved issues in v1.8.5?", > "what are the issues that didn't exist in v1.7.0 but appear in > v1.8.5?", "what are the outstanding issues around refs handling that > are the highest priority?", etc. With your arrangement of data, any > of the common questions I think of asking would require a linear > scan of a commit range, followed by an enumeration and parsing of > all the notes attached to the commits to answer. > > So I would have to say that your expectation makes even less sense > than annotating an exact buggy commit with a note saying what is > broken by it. Not that annotating the commit as "this commit has this bug" makes much sense, though, of course ;-) But at least it would let us answer "Does this commit introduce a bug?" question, and if the annotated information also records "... and that other commit is a fix that can be cherry-picked (or merged)", that would be even better. That would allow us, when merging down the commit thusly annotated, to stop and consider either not merging (because it is known to introduce a bug) or merging with fixes also merged (because the solution is already known and recorded).