Discussion:
[mantisbt-dev] Bugs for trivial internal code changes
Victor Boctor
2014-05-26 22:45:37 UTC
Permalink
Hi all,



I thought it is worth discussing this so that we have clear process for it.




http://www.mantisbt.org/bugs/view.php?id=17378 - move a variable from
global to static.

http://www.mantisbt.org/bugs/view.php?id=17377 - move another variable from
gobal to static.

http://www.mantisbt.org/bugs/view.php?id=17376 - se sprint instead of
utf8_str_pad for perf



These are all fine issues that we can fix, but having them as issues in the
bug tracker and eventually in the change log is almost spam. Also having
two separate pull requests for each variable we want to rename seems to be
an overkill.



Having said that, other issues like "remove copy_fields utility" make sense.



I suggest, we delete the 3 issues referenced above. However, the changes
can still go in. We can continue to use the code clean category to track
bigger changes.



Thanks,

-Victor
P Richards
2014-05-26 23:17:13 UTC
Permalink
The purpose of creating an issue in the bug tracker was to link the change
such that it's possible track the status of the pull request against 1.3.



In terms of the first 2, that was more from the fact that I'd initially
fixed them separately years ago, so hadn't spotted I'd done the same thing
as two separate fixes in the past.



We can always choose not to link the issue to the change log (i.e. not set a
fixed in version variable) for these sorts of changes, but we shouldn't
delete issue reports as that removes history permanently - it's not exactly
an issue to have an extra row in a database table.



A pull request in github should have a related Mantis bug tracker issue to
track. Ideally, IMO - we should have the discussion around the issue in our
bug tracker rather than on github (after all, we are coding a bug and issue
tracking with source code integration). Equally, if it was an end user
submitting the improvement, we tell them they can create an issue and upload
a formatted patch.



Whilst in this case, I've used github for the pull request, I could equally
have just added the same patch to the bug tracker or emailed it to the
Victor Boctor [mailto:]
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
At the same time, the issues you link are rather trivial, and we are now
holding up development for a week (or at least until everyone gets time to
review the change if earlier) for the review process to take place.



In short, given our current review process, these should exist as bugs in
the tracker - we probably do need to consider not applying the fixed in
version tag for some fixes so as to keep the change log readable.



For instance, lets take 17377 / 17378 as an example. Before, I'd started
doing work to reduce the number of global variables in Mantis. These commits
are backports of this work. (The language file changes that we did, then
didn't include or may have left in the api - I think revert then unreverted
them so I can't remember where we left them, was also part of this). The
purpose for reducing the number of global variables in my eyes was really to
make it easier for people developing around Mantis by reducing the amount of
items in the global state, whilst also potentially making it harder to
exploit/break something by using the global state.



Anyway, in this case, I'd say the correct behaviour is to create a bug (for
the changelog purpose),



"Reduce PHP global state" -> this bug would have fixed_in_version set to
1.3.



Issues 17377 and 17378 would then be set up as related (child) bugs to "PHP
global state", and when marked as resolved, we'd *not* set a
fixed_in_version value.



This enables us to provide a more user-friendly changelog, whilst keeping a
complete history.



We should probably apply this process to some of the other issues in the
changelog - for example, we could simplify the display of the improvements
to oracle in the 1.3 branch using a similar technique









From: Victor Boctor [mailto:***@outlook.com]
Sent: 26 May 2014 23:46
To: 'developer discussions'
Subject: [mantisbt-dev] Bugs for trivial internal code changes



Hi all,



I thought it is worth discussing this so that we have clear process for it.




http://www.mantisbt.org/bugs/view.php?id378 - move a variable from
global to static.

http://www.mantisbt.org/bugs/view.php?id377 - move another variable from
gobal to static.

http://www.mantisbt.org/bugs/view.php?id376 - se sprint instead of
utf8_str_pad for perf



These are all fine issues that we can fix, but having them as issues in the
bug tracker and eventually in the change log is almost spam. Also having
two separate pull requests for each variable we want to rename seems to be
an overkill.



Having said that, other issues like "remove copy_fields utility" make sense.



I suggest, we delete the 3 issues referenced above. However, the changes
can still go in. We can continue to use the code clean category to track
bigger changes.



Thanks,

-Victor


------=_NextPart_000_00EE_01CF7941.02CEB4D0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The purpose of creating an issue in the bug tracker was to link the change such that it&#8217;s possible track the status of the pull request against 1.3. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>In terms of the first 2, that was more from the fact that I&#8217;d initially fixed them separately years ago, so hadn&#8217;t spotted I&#8217;d done the same thing as two separate fixes in the past. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>We can always choose not to link the issue to the change log (i.e. not set a fixed in version variable) for these sorts of changes, but we shouldn&#8217;t delete issue reports as that removes history permanently &#8211; it&#8217;s not exactly an issue to have an extra row in a database table.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>A pull request in github should have a related Mantis bug tracker issue to track. Ideally, IMO &#8211; we should have the discussion around the issue in our bug tracker rather than on github (after all, we are coding a bug and issue tracking with source code integration). Equally, if it was an end user submitting the improvement, we tell them they can create an issue and upload a formatted patch. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Whilst in this case, I&#8217;ve used github for the pull request, I could equally have just added the same patch to the bug tracker or emailed it to the developers list instead. (
Roland Becker
2014-05-27 06:43:21 UTC
Permalink
We had a similar discussion when I fixed some regressions, e.g.
http://www.mantisbt.org/bugs/view.php?id=16486
http://www.mantisbt.org/bugs/view.php?id=16487

The decision was to set "product Version" to "1.3dev", set "Target Version" to
"1.3.x" and set "Fixed in Version" to "1.3.x" in a first step to have the
roadmap to track progress of 1.3.
The second step is to unset all "Fixed in Version" where "product Version" is
"1.3dev" after 1.3 has been released.
This will cleanup the change log.
The same approach would work also for code cleanup issues.

Roland
Post by Victor Boctor
Hi all,
 
I thought it is worth discussing this so that we have clear process for it.
 
http://www.mantisbt.org/bugs/view.php?id=17378 - move  a variable from
global to static.
http://www.mantisbt.org/bugs/view.php?id=17377 - move another variable from
gobal to static.
http://www.mantisbt.org/bugs/view.php?id=17376 - se sprint instead of
utf8_str_pad for perf
 
These are all fine issues that we can fix, but having them as issues in the
bug tracker and eventually in the change log is almost spam.  Also having
two separate pull requests for each variable we want to rename seems to be
an overkill.
 
Having said that, other issues like "remove copy_fields utility" make sense.
 
I suggest, we delete the 3 issues referenced above.  However, the changes
can still go in.  We can continue to use the code clean category to track
bigger changes.
 
Thanks,
-Victor
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The best possible search technologies are now affordable for all companies.
Download your FREE open source Enterprise Search Engine today!
Our experts will assist you in its installation for $59/mo, no commitment.
Test it for FREE on our Cloud platform anytime!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=145328191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk_______________________________________________
mantisbt-dev mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mantisbt-dev
Loading...