[ham] Re: quoting, tasks, semantics

Kristis Makris mkgnu at gmx.net
Mon Sep 13 21:12:56 UTC 2004

I missed previous discussions on this topic.

> as threads are to processes.  In other words, tweaks and tasks are like 
> bugs, but they're light weight and they don't require as much overhead. 
> Practically speaking, expecting folks to make a new bug for every tweak 
> would be ridiculous and a significant overhead for the bug reporter and 
> the developer.

I just wanted to mention that I often run across this problem of also
having to keep such a list of tweaks. And when the tweaks within a bug
cross multiple components (e.g. ComponentA and, almost always,
Documentation) I'm unsure what to do. I definitely lose some
traceability of which bugs touch which components. Arguably one can add
a master "Task" bug with a list of dependencies for its completion, but
we may lose some information doing this when producing release

I can envision producing a high-level release notes document (from
Scmbug) that states "Added Feature A" by looking at Tasks that were
implemented between revisions. A lower-level release notes documents can
list the list of bugs (or tweaks if you wish) that had to be implemented
to complete the Task.

Arguably, all of the above can be applied by flagging master Task bugs
with a keyword and querying for those (which is what I'm doing now).

Just wanted to bring up the point that bugs+tweaks affect how release
documents can be automatically produced.

More information about the developers mailing list