Re: svn commit: r1867663 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonEntityLabels.xml

[Swapnil M Mane]

Hi Deepak,

Happy to see your commits in action. :)
Just a minor suggestion, we put Jira ticket ID in separate line in commit
log.
Also, add colon ':' in Thanks statement.
And since the ticket type is 'Improvement', it seems to me, we should use
'Improved' instead of 'Fixed'.

Here is commit template for your quick reference
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+commit+message+template

Following commit log template will help us in producing the monthly blog
development details.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Best regards,
Swapnil M Mane,
ofbiz.apache.org



On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 3:56 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Author: deepaknigam
> Date: Sat Sep 28 10:26:09 2019
> New Revision: 1867663
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1867663&view=rev
> Log:
> Fixed: Serbian CommonEntityLabels for geo entity. (OFBIZ-11209)
> Added missing entity label for Serbia.
> Thanks Ulrich Heidfeld for your contribution.
>
> Modified:
>
> ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonEntityLabels.xml
>
> Modified:
> ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonEntityLabels.xml
> URL:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonEntityLabels.xml?rev=1867663&r1=1867662&r2=1867663&view=diff
>
> ==============================================================================
> ---
> ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonEntityLabels.xml
> (original)
> +++
> ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonEntityLabels.xml
> Sat Sep 28 10:26:09 2019
> @@ -8011,6 +8011,10 @@
>          <value xml:lang="zh">圣皮埃尔和密克隆群岛</value>
>          <value xml:lang="zh-TW">è –çš®åŸƒçˆ¾å’Œå¯†å…‹éš†ç¾¤å³¶</value>
>      </property>
> +    <property key="Geo.geoName.SRB">
> +        <value xml:lang="de">Serbien</value>
> +        <value xml:lang="en">Serbia</value>
> +    </property>
>      <property key="Geo.geoName.STP">
>          <value xml:lang="ar">سان تومي وبرينسيبي</value>
>          <value xml:lang="de">Sao Tome und Principe</value>
>
>
>

[Pierre Smits]

Fyi: improvement (tickets) get ‘implemented’, and bugs get ‘fixed’. As per
established conventions.

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 15:50 Swapnil M Mane <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Deepak,
>
> Happy to see your commits in action. :)
> Just a minor suggestion, we put Jira ticket ID in separate line in commit
> log.
> Also, add colon ':' in Thanks statement.
> And since the ticket type is 'Improvement', it seems to me, we should use
> 'Improved' instead of 'Fixed'.
>
> Here is commit template for your quick reference
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+commit+message+template
>
> Following commit log template will help us in producing the monthly blog
> development details.
>
> Thanks for your cooperation.
>
> Best regards,
> Swapnil M Mane,
> ofbiz.apache.org
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 3:56 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Author: deepaknigam
> > Date: Sat Sep 28 10:26:09 2019
> > New Revision: 1867663
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1867663&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Fixed: Serbian CommonEntityLabels for geo entity. (OFBIZ-11209)
> > Added missing entity label for Serbia.
> > Thanks Ulrich Heidfeld for your contribution.
> >
> > Modified:
> >
> >
> ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonEntityLabels.xml
> >
> > Modified:
> >
> ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonEntityLabels.xml
> > URL:
> >
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonEntityLabels.xml?rev=1867663&r1=1867662&r2=1867663&view=diff
> >
> >
> ==============================================================================
> > ---
> >
> ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonEntityLabels.xml
> > (original)
> > +++
> >
> ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonEntityLabels.xml
> > Sat Sep 28 10:26:09 2019
> > @@ -8011,6 +8011,10 @@
> >          <value xml:lang="zh">圣皮埃尔和密克隆群岛</value>
> >          <value xml:lang="zh-TW">è –çš®åŸƒçˆ¾å’Œå¯†å…‹éš†ç¾¤å³¶</value>
> >      </property>
> > +    <property key="Geo.geoName.SRB">
> > +        <value xml:lang="de">Serbien</value>
> > +        <value xml:lang="en">Serbia</value>
> > +    </property>
> >      <property key="Geo.geoName.STP">
> >          <value xml:lang="ar">سان تومي وبرينسيبي</value>
> >          <value xml:lang="de">Sao Tome und Principe</value>
> >
> >
> >
>

--
Sent from my phone

[Mathieu Lirzin]

Hello,

Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> writes:

> Fyi: improvement (tickets) get ‘implemented’, and bugs get ‘fixed’. As per
> established conventions.

From what I understood from the examples and common practice [1], this
is only partially true.  Improvement tickets can be associated with both
‘Implemented:’ and ‘Improved:’ commits depending on the type of
improvement:

   - Refactoring => “Improved:”
   - New feature => “Implemented:”

[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+commit+message+template

> On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 15:50 Swapnil M Mane <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Deepak,
>>
>> Happy to see your commits in action. :)
>> Just a minor suggestion, we put Jira ticket ID in separate line in commit
>> log.
>> Also, add colon ':' in Thanks statement.
>> And since the ticket type is 'Improvement', it seems to me, we should use
>> 'Improved' instead of 'Fixed'.
>>
>> Here is commit template for your quick reference
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+commit+message+template
>>
>> Following commit log template will help us in producing the monthly blog
>> development details.

As a general rule, I would say that working on a “bug” ticket implies at
least one “Fixed:” commit, but it is possible to associate a
complementary refactoring “Improved:” commit to a “bug” ticket.  On the
other hand an “improvement” ticket can not be associated with a “Fixed:”
commit.

What about adding a CONTRIBUTING.adoc file the repository stating those
rules?  This would make things far more visible and explicit than on
Confluence which is not very visible (I often to keep bookmarks to
retrieve some information) and far from the code.

What do people think?

--
Mathieu Lirzin
GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761  070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37

[Swapnil M Mane]

+1 Mathieu for documenting these rules/conventions, thank you!

Best regards,
Swapnil M Mane,
ofbiz.apache.org



On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 5:08 PM Mathieu Lirzin <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> writes:
>
> > Fyi: improvement (tickets) get ‘implemented’, and bugs get ‘fixed’. As
> per
> > established conventions.
>
> From what I understood from the examples and common practice [1], this
> is only partially true.  Improvement tickets can be associated with both
> ‘Implemented:’ and ‘Improved:’ commits depending on the type of
> improvement:
>
>    - Refactoring => “Improved:”
>    - New feature => “Implemented:”
>
> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+commit+message+template
>
> > On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 15:50 Swapnil M Mane <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Deepak,
> >>
> >> Happy to see your commits in action. :)
> >> Just a minor suggestion, we put Jira ticket ID in separate line in
> commit
> >> log.
> >> Also, add colon ':' in Thanks statement.
> >> And since the ticket type is 'Improvement', it seems to me, we should
> use
> >> 'Improved' instead of 'Fixed'.
> >>
> >> Here is commit template for your quick reference
> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+commit+message+template
> >>
> >> Following commit log template will help us in producing the monthly blog
> >> development details.
>
> As a general rule, I would say that working on a “bug” ticket implies at
> least one “Fixed:” commit, but it is possible to associate a
> complementary refactoring “Improved:” commit to a “bug” ticket.  On the
> other hand an “improvement” ticket can not be associated with a “Fixed:”
> commit.
>
> What about adding a CONTRIBUTING.adoc file the repository stating those
> rules?  This would make things far more visible and explicit than on
> Confluence which is not very visible (I often to keep bookmarks to
> retrieve some information) and far from the code.
>
> What do people think?
>
> --
> Mathieu Lirzin
> GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761  070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37
>

[deepak nigam-2]

Thanks, Swapnil and Pierre for your inputs. I'll do an SVN prop change.

Thanks & Regards
--
Deepak Nigam

On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 3:56 PM Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Fyi: improvement (tickets) get ‘implemented’, and bugs get ‘fixed’. As per
> established conventions.
>
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 15:50 Swapnil M Mane <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Deepak,
> >
> > Happy to see your commits in action. :)
> > Just a minor suggestion, we put Jira ticket ID in separate line in commit
> > log.
> > Also, add colon ':' in Thanks statement.
> > And since the ticket type is 'Improvement', it seems to me, we should use
> > 'Improved' instead of 'Fixed'.
> >
> > Here is commit template for your quick reference
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+commit+message+template
> >
> > Following commit log template will help us in producing the monthly blog
> > development details.
> >
> > Thanks for your cooperation.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Swapnil M Mane,
> > ofbiz.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 3:56 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Author: deepaknigam
> > > Date: Sat Sep 28 10:26:09 2019
> > > New Revision: 1867663
> > >
> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1867663&view=rev
> > > Log:
> > > Fixed: Serbian CommonEntityLabels for geo entity. (OFBIZ-11209)
> > > Added missing entity label for Serbia.
> > > Thanks Ulrich Heidfeld for your contribution.
> > >
> > > Modified:
> > >
> > >
> >
> ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonEntityLabels.xml
> > >
> > > Modified:
> > >
> >
> ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonEntityLabels.xml
> > > URL:
> > >
> >
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonEntityLabels.xml?rev=1867663&r1=1867662&r2=1867663&view=diff
> > >
> > >
> >
> ==============================================================================
> > > ---
> > >
> >
> ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonEntityLabels.xml
> > > (original)
> > > +++
> > >
> >
> ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonEntityLabels.xml
> > > Sat Sep 28 10:26:09 2019
> > > @@ -8011,6 +8011,10 @@
> > >          <value xml:lang="zh">圣皮埃尔和密克隆群岛</value>
> > >          <value xml:lang="zh-TW">è –çš®åŸƒçˆ¾å’Œå¯†å…‹éš†ç¾¤å³¶</value>
> > >      </property>
> > > +    <property key="Geo.geoName.SRB">
> > > +        <value xml:lang="de">Serbien</value>
> > > +        <value xml:lang="en">Serbia</value>
> > > +    </property>
> > >      <property key="Geo.geoName.STP">
> > >          <value xml:lang="ar">سان تومي
> وبرينسيبي</value>
> > >          <value xml:lang="de">Sao Tome und Principe</value>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> --
> Sent from my phone
>

[Pawan Verma]

+1
--
Thanks & Regards
Pawan Verma
Technical Consultant
*HotWax Systems*
*Enterprise open source experts*
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com


On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 10:57 AM Swapnil M Mane <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> +1 Mathieu for documenting these rules/conventions, thank you!
>
> Best regards,
> Swapnil M Mane,
> ofbiz.apache.org
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 5:08 PM Mathieu Lirzin <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> writes:
> >
> > > Fyi: improvement (tickets) get ‘implemented’, and bugs get ‘fixed’. As
> > per
> > > established conventions.
> >
> > From what I understood from the examples and common practice [1], this
> > is only partially true.  Improvement tickets can be associated with both
> > ‘Implemented:’ and ‘Improved:’ commits depending on the type of
> > improvement:
> >
> >    - Refactoring => “Improved:”
> >    - New feature => “Implemented:”
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+commit+message+template
> >
> > > On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 15:50 Swapnil M Mane <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Deepak,
> > >>
> > >> Happy to see your commits in action. :)
> > >> Just a minor suggestion, we put Jira ticket ID in separate line in
> > commit
> > >> log.
> > >> Also, add colon ':' in Thanks statement.
> > >> And since the ticket type is 'Improvement', it seems to me, we should
> > use
> > >> 'Improved' instead of 'Fixed'.
> > >>
> > >> Here is commit template for your quick reference
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+commit+message+template
> > >>
> > >> Following commit log template will help us in producing the monthly
> blog
> > >> development details.
> >
> > As a general rule, I would say that working on a “bug” ticket implies at
> > least one “Fixed:” commit, but it is possible to associate a
> > complementary refactoring “Improved:” commit to a “bug” ticket.  On the
> > other hand an “improvement” ticket can not be associated with a “Fixed:”
> > commit.
> >
> > What about adding a CONTRIBUTING.adoc file the repository stating those
> > rules?  This would make things far more visible and explicit than on
> > Confluence which is not very visible (I often to keep bookmarks to
> > retrieve some information) and far from the code.
> >
> > What do people think?
> >
> > --
> > Mathieu Lirzin
> > GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761  070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37
> >
>

[adityasharma]

+1. Thank you Mathieu!

Thanks and regards,
Aditya Sharma

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 11:44 AM Pawan Verma <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> +1
> --
> Thanks & Regards
> Pawan Verma
> Technical Consultant
> *HotWax Systems*
> *Enterprise open source experts*
> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 10:57 AM Swapnil M Mane <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 Mathieu for documenting these rules/conventions, thank you!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Swapnil M Mane,
> > ofbiz.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 5:08 PM Mathieu Lirzin <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Fyi: improvement (tickets) get ‘implemented’, and bugs get ‘fixed’.
> As
> > > per
> > > > established conventions.
> > >
> > > From what I understood from the examples and common practice [1], this
> > > is only partially true.  Improvement tickets can be associated with
> both
> > > ‘Implemented:’ and ‘Improved:’ commits depending on the type of
> > > improvement:
> > >
> > >    - Refactoring => “Improved:”
> > >    - New feature => “Implemented:”
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+commit+message+template
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 15:50 Swapnil M Mane <[hidden email]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Deepak,
> > > >>
> > > >> Happy to see your commits in action. :)
> > > >> Just a minor suggestion, we put Jira ticket ID in separate line in
> > > commit
> > > >> log.
> > > >> Also, add colon ':' in Thanks statement.
> > > >> And since the ticket type is 'Improvement', it seems to me, we
> should
> > > use
> > > >> 'Improved' instead of 'Fixed'.
> > > >>
> > > >> Here is commit template for your quick reference
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+commit+message+template
> > > >>
> > > >> Following commit log template will help us in producing the monthly
> > blog
> > > >> development details.
> > >
> > > As a general rule, I would say that working on a “bug” ticket implies
> at
> > > least one “Fixed:” commit, but it is possible to associate a
> > > complementary refactoring “Improved:” commit to a “bug” ticket.  On the
> > > other hand an “improvement” ticket can not be associated with a
> “Fixed:”
> > > commit.
> > >
> > > What about adding a CONTRIBUTING.adoc file the repository stating those
> > > rules?  This would make things far more visible and explicit than on
> > > Confluence which is not very visible (I often to keep bookmarks to
> > > retrieve some information) and far from the code.
> > >
> > > What do people think?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mathieu Lirzin
> > > GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761  070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37
> > >
> >
>

[Pierre Smits-3]

Hi Mathieu, all,

I am at a loss here, are you suggesting to introduce new ticket types,
and/or sub types? As far as JIRA shows there are only:

   1. bug (which can get to final successful resolution 'fixed')
   2. improvement (which can get to final successful resolution
   'implemented')
   3. new feature (which also can get to final successful resolution
   'implemented')
   4. task (which can get to final successful resolution 'done')
   5. test (which can get to a final successful resolution 'executed')
   6. wish (....)

Refactoring is not a recognised type, and IMO it should not be in. We
should keep things as simple as possible.

Doesn't the proposed change for bug tickets (being able to classify it as
'improved' confuse many? Or am I missing the point?

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*Apache Trafodion <https://trafodion.apache.org>, Vice President*
*Apache Directory <https://directory.apache.org>, PMC Member*
Apache Incubator <https://incubator.apache.org>, committer
*Apache OFBiz <https://ofbiz.apache.org>, contributor (without privileges)
since 2008*
Apache Steve <https://steve.apache.org>, committer


On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 1:38 PM Mathieu Lirzin <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> writes:
>
> > Fyi: improvement (tickets) get ‘implemented’, and bugs get ‘fixed’. As
> per
> > established conventions.
>
> From what I understood from the examples and common practice [1], this
> is only partially true.  Improvement tickets can be associated with both
> ‘Implemented:’ and ‘Improved:’ commits depending on the type of
> improvement:
>
>    - Refactoring => “Improved:”
>    - New feature => “Implemented:”
>
> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+commit+message+template
>
> > On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 15:50 Swapnil M Mane <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Deepak,
> >>
> >> Happy to see your commits in action. :)
> >> Just a minor suggestion, we put Jira ticket ID in separate line in
> commit
> >> log.
> >> Also, add colon ':' in Thanks statement.
> >> And since the ticket type is 'Improvement', it seems to me, we should
> use
> >> 'Improved' instead of 'Fixed'.
> >>
> >> Here is commit template for your quick reference
> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+commit+message+template
> >>
> >> Following commit log template will help us in producing the monthly blog
> >> development details.
>
> As a general rule, I would say that working on a “bug” ticket implies at
> least one “Fixed:” commit, but it is possible to associate a
> complementary refactoring “Improved:” commit to a “bug” ticket.  On the
> other hand an “improvement” ticket can not be associated with a “Fixed:”
> commit.
>
> What about adding a CONTRIBUTING.adoc file the repository stating those
> rules?  This would make things far more visible and explicit than on
> Confluence which is not very visible (I often to keep bookmarks to
> retrieve some information) and far from the code.
>
> What do people think?
>
> --
> Mathieu Lirzin
> GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761  070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37
>

[Mathieu Lirzin]

Hello Pierre,

Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> writes:

> I am at a loss here, are you suggesting to introduce new ticket types,
> and/or sub types?

My intent was not to propose a change besides documenting things in a
“CONTRIBUTING.adoc” file instead of in Confluence.  I was trying to make
more explicit the relation between the “Jira ticket types” and “commit
prefixes” as there are currently documented [1][2] and used in practice.
Here are the two lists:

    - Commit prefixes := Implemented|Improved|Fixed|Completed|Documented|Reverted
    - Jira ticket type := Improvement|Bug|New feature|Test|Wish|Task

It is possible that I misinterpreted the current documentation or took
inspiration from “mistakes” made by me or others. So the rules I stated
in my previous mail may not reflect what we are supposed to do.

> As far as JIRA shows there are only:
>
>    1. bug (which can get to final successful resolution 'fixed')
>    2. improvement (which can get to final successful resolution
>    'implemented')
>    3. new feature (which also can get to final successful resolution
>    'implemented')
>    4. task (which can get to final successful resolution 'done')
>    5. test (which can get to a final successful resolution 'executed')
>    6. wish (....)
>
> Refactoring is not a recognised type, and IMO it should not be in. We
> should keep things as simple as possible.
>
> Doesn't the proposed change for bug tickets (being able to classify it as
> 'improved' confuse many? Or am I missing the point?

I agree that our commit guidelines are complex for reasons or benefits
that are not obvious to me, but that's another topic since I didn't
proposed to change them.  :-)

I hope this message will help you understand the intent of my previous
one.

Thanks.

[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+commit+message+template
[2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities

--
Mathieu Lirzin
GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761  070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi Mathieu, Pierre,

As Scott once said all could be resolved to improvement (I could not find the reference but I clearly remember it)

BTW, if you have time and want some "entertainment" you might read https://markmail.org/message/pgcf6zfqf6xkfmii

Not really helping :)

Jacques

Le 30/09/2019 à 12:50, Mathieu Lirzin a écrit :

> Hello Pierre,
>
> Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>> I am at a loss here, are you suggesting to introduce new ticket types,
>> and/or sub types?
> My intent was not to propose a change besides documenting things in a
> “CONTRIBUTING.adoc” file instead of in Confluence.  I was trying to make
> more explicit the relation between the “Jira ticket types” and “commit
> prefixes” as there are currently documented [1][2] and used in practice.
> Here are the two lists:
>
>      - Commit prefixes := Implemented|Improved|Fixed|Completed|Documented|Reverted
>      - Jira ticket type := Improvement|Bug|New feature|Test|Wish|Task
>
> It is possible that I misinterpreted the current documentation or took
> inspiration from “mistakes” made by me or others. So the rules I stated
> in my previous mail may not reflect what we are supposed to do.
>
>> As far as JIRA shows there are only:
>>
>>     1. bug (which can get to final successful resolution 'fixed')
>>     2. improvement (which can get to final successful resolution
>>     'implemented')
>>     3. new feature (which also can get to final successful resolution
>>     'implemented')
>>     4. task (which can get to final successful resolution 'done')
>>     5. test (which can get to a final successful resolution 'executed')
>>     6. wish (....)
>>
>> Refactoring is not a recognised type, and IMO it should not be in. We
>> should keep things as simple as possible.
>>
>> Doesn't the proposed change for bug tickets (being able to classify it as
>> 'improved' confuse many? Or am I missing the point?
> I agree that our commit guidelines are complex for reasons or benefits
> that are not obvious to me, but that's another topic since I didn't
> proposed to change them.  :-)
>
> I hope this message will help you understand the intent of my previous
> one.
>
> Thanks.
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+commit+message+template
> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities
>

[Mathieu Lirzin]

Hello Jacques,

Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> writes:

> As Scott once said all could be resolved to improvement (I could not
> find the reference but I clearly remember it)

It depends if you believe in progress or not. :-)

If not, every ticket/patch could be seen as “evolution” without taking
side regarding if it improves or decays the current version.

> BTW, if you have time and want some "entertainment" you might read
> https://markmail.org/message/pgcf6zfqf6xkfmii
>
> Not really helping :)

Having more context on a subject is always helpful.

Thanks.

--
Mathieu Lirzin
GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761  070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37