launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Bjorn Tillenius <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 10:12:01AM +0000, Julian Edwards wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 December 2009 10:02:33 Bjorn Tillenius wrote:
> > Yeah, it could be that it makes more sense for Soyuz. But still, you
> > usually don't know that it involves only template and/or browser code,
> > before you actually start coding. It often happens that something that
> > is done in browser code today, is better to have in model code, so you
> > end up moving the code, and the tag is now incorrect.
> 
> I disagree there.  I don't usually slap on a ui tag unless I've looked at the 
> problem and analysed what needs to be done.  Of course there may be exceptions 
> as you describe but these are very rare.
> 
> I think "ui" is actually more appropriate for template-only changes.

Right. The issue here is that you use the tag in one way, and others use
it in another way. The main issue is probably the name here, if it
should be about template-only changes, "template-only" would be a better
name.


> > Also, what do you use the tag for? Do you ever look at look at the list
> > of ui bugs? Why? In what way does the ui bugs make sense as a group of
> > bugs?
> 
> I only occasionally look at lists - but as it happens I am using them at the 
> moment to find a variety of bug types for Jelmer.  Its main use to me is as a 
> quick indicator of the kind of work involved to fix the bug.

This is a good use case.


> Sometimes we can also group the same kind of fixes into the same branch.

This is less of a good use case. I'd say please don't group ui fixes
together, unless they are highly related, it makes it harder to review
the changes. Don't save work for yourself, by creating more work for the
reviewers (including post-merge reviewers).


-- 
Björn Tillenius | https://launchpad.net/~bjornt