[darcs-devel] resolve issueNNNN convention
Eric Kow
kowey at darcs.net
Tue Apr 5 13:03:42 UTC 2011
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 01:39:38 +0100, Iago Abal wrote:
> > - I think the patch description actually has to be "resolve issue1611"
> > not "resolve issue 1611" - though perhaps we should improve the
> > recogniser. This is in screened now so something to remember for the
> > future, rather than changing this patch.
> >
> As I said you I write it in that way because googling I saw some examples
> that follow that pattern
> http://www.google.pt/search?q=%22resolve+issue%22+darcs , today I re-visited
> those examples and I see that most of them are from Eric, Florent, etc (i.e.
> core team members). Was the convention different at some point in the past?
People make mistakes. Also, the top few search results appear to be
from new contributors (at the time)
See also http://bugs.darcs.net/patch579
Note that it's still good to stick to one convention even if we have
flexible automation. Not that we should try very hard, but if we do
this naturally, this makes it more likely that busy/tired Release
Managers, or anybody trying to study the history will get the right
results when they trawl through darcs changes.
It's a general attitude of make an effort to do things the right way,
but don't sweat it if not.
--
Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow>
For a faster response, try +44 (0)1273 64 2905 or
xmpp:kowey at jabber.fr (Jabber or Google Talk only)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-devel/attachments/20110405/774c1fb9/attachment.asc>
More information about the darcs-devel
mailing list