xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1360665 - in /xmlgraphics/fop/trunk: ./ src/java/org/apache/fop/layoutmgr/ test/java/org/apache/fop/intermediate/ test/java/org/apache/fop/layoutengine/
Date Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:14:46 GMT
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Vincent Hennebert <vhennebert@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 12/07/12 16:17, Glenn Adams wrote:
> > If there is no bug entry in bugzilla, then there is/was no bug. Since
> this
> > is clearly a bug fix, there should be a documentation trail through the
> bug
> > database. So please create an entry and do so in the future. The
> status.xml
> > document is only an informal paraphrase of bug database entries, and
> should
> > not be considered the authoritative list of bugs.
> Well it /is/ authoritative, in the sense that its content is used to
> display the list of changes on the website:
> http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/changes.html

The fact that status.xml makes reference to bugzilla entries, and not the
other way around shows the latter is more authoritative than the former.

> As long as it’s the case, duplicating entries in Bugzilla is just
> a waste of time.

Not it isn't. It is good time spent to document the work on FOP/XGC, etc.
Others are doing this, so you should follow suit and not be remiss in your

> Once that status.xml has been deprecated and an other mechanism
> implemented to extract the list of changes from Bugzilla and display
> them on the website, I’ll certainly start creating entries in Bugzilla.
> In the meantime, I don’t see the point of doing both.
> Unless, again, I’m missing something.

It's a matter of following best current practice. Failing to record in BZ
is not following BCP.

View raw message