JiraBot and pull requests

a good reason for people to use "SI-1234" in commit messages, instead
of "#1234".

On Saturday, July 16, 2011, Jason Zaugg wrote:
> Just a heads up: I noticed that mentioning a pull request in a commit
> message will lend some traffic to ancient tickets sharing the same ID.
>
> -jason
>
> https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-42?focusedCommentId=54030&page=c...
>

On 7/16/11 10:07 AM, Lukas Rytz wrote:
> a good reason for people to use "SI-1234" in commit messages, instead
> of "#1234".

Unfortunately there is an even better reason not to:

https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/INF-67

Unless you are saying this has been fixed?

On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 19:58, Paul Phillips <paulp@improving.org> wrote:

On 7/16/11 10:07 AM, Lukas Rytz wrote:
> a good reason for people to use "SI-1234" in commit messages, instead
> of "#1234".

Unfortunately there is an even better reason not to:

 https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/INF-67

Unless you are saying this has been fixed?

yes it is..

On 7/17/11 12:52 PM, Lukas Rytz wrote:
> Unfortunately there is an even better reason not to:
>
> https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/INF-67
>
> Unless you are saying this has been fixed?
>
>
> yes it is..

OK:

commit e70f043d15a7ad759074a52045610e187ac5f855
Author: extempore
Date: Tue Jul 19 21:25:40 2011 +0000

Restored test case for SI-2873 which hubert had callously deleted
back when it was briefly irrelevant. It would have been failing were
it around, but now it passes. Closes SI-2873, no review.

At this writing SI-2873 is still looking pretty open.

Also:

- I opened a ticket with a pretty specific issue
- there's no comment on the issue, no way to have any idea someone thinks it is fixed
- ticket is still open even though you say it's fixed
- and, by all appearances it is not fixed

Hopefully you will agree this is not indicative of a well-functioning system.

On 7/19/11 2:30 PM, Paul Phillips wrote:
> - I opened a ticket with a pretty specific issue
> - there's no comment on the issue, no way to have any idea someone thinks it is fixed
> - ticket is still open even though you say it's fixed
> - and, by all appearances it is not fixed

"anonymous" did eventually close SI-2873, which is great, but the issues
suggested above (excepting the last) remain.

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 23:30, Paul Phillips <paulp@improving.org> wrote:

On 7/17/11 12:52 PM, Lukas Rytz wrote:
>     Unfortunately there is an even better reason not to:
>
>      https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/INF-67
>
>     Unless you are saying this has been fixed?
>
>
> yes it is..

OK:

commit e70f043d15a7ad759074a52045610e187ac5f855
Author: extempore <extempore@5e8d7ff9-d8ef-0310-90f0-a4852d11357a>
Date:   Tue Jul 19 21:25:40 2011 +0000

   Restored test case for SI-2873 which hubert had callously deleted
   back when it was briefly irrelevant.  It would have been failing were
   it around, but now it passes.  Closes SI-2873, no review.


At this writing SI-2873 is still looking pretty open.

i guess this is another bug, since the ticket is mentioned both in a "reference-only"and in a "close" fashion.  

Also:

 - I opened a ticket with a pretty specific issue

yes, i didn't see that.. there seem to be no notifications in jira for the infrastructure project. 

 - there's no comment on the issue, no way to have any idea someone thinks it is fixed
 - ticket is still open even though you say it's fixed
 - and, by all appearances it is not fixed

Hopefully you will agree this is not indicative of a well-functioning system.

On 7/20/11 12:10 AM, Lukas Rytz wrote:
> yes, i didn't see that.. there seem to be no notifications in jira for
> the infrastructure project.

Oh, in that case there are a bunch more.

Also, I don't receive much in the way of notifications from jira about
anything in any project. I opened a ticket in part about that (INF-69)
a month ago, but it is fitting that it doesn't email you about much either.