[zeromq-dev] Git workflow proposal

[Martin Sustrik]

On 08/09/2010 12:48 PM, Martin Lucina wrote:
>> 7. I'd really like (even for my own work) a tight link between issues
>> and topic branches.
>>
>> There is a really important thing you're missing, which is design by
>> contract.  We miss this in 0MQ.  The reason for tying changes into
>> documented issues is to 'encourage' people who shoot first and explain
>> later to instead document first, then shoot, then confirm the critter
>> is really dead.
>>      
> I don't have a problem with that but knowing the way Martin Sustrik works
> he might :-)
>
> Also the nature of some work is experimental and it will gradually evolve.
> That's not saying that the experimental work shouldn't be documented once
> it hits master but some people (Martin again) have a different modus
> operandi than "Document the contract first".
>    
I've tried to document the experimental work using buck tracker back in 
the time we were using Jira. The result was chaos. While issue trackers 
are perfect for managing bug reports, they are no good for experimental 
work. What you end up with is lot of unresolved issues, that are either 
abandoned or endlessly postponed, issues where the scope and focus 
drifts over the time etc.

Finally you stop using bug tracker at all because you don't want to deal 
with the resulting mess.

> Also, my point about commit messages is that a Contributor can choose to
> either open an issue or document their work in the commit message. The two
> approaches seem of equal merit.
>    

Yes, documenting post facto is the only meaningful way to do it for 
experimental work.

Not so with bug fixes!

Martin