Thread: Within CF app, "Bug Fixes" should be "Bug Fixes/Refactoring"
I think that within the CF app, we should either rename the patch topic "Bug Fixes" to "Bug Fixes/Refactoring", or introduce a new "Refactoring" topic. I prefer the first approach. -- Peter Geoghegan
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > I think that within the CF app, we should either rename the patch > topic "Bug Fixes" to "Bug Fixes/Refactoring", or introduce a new > "Refactoring" topic. I prefer the first approach. I would vote for the second approach, with a separate category for refactoring. -- Michael
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> I think that within the CF app, we should either rename the patch
> topic "Bug Fixes" to "Bug Fixes/Refactoring", or introduce a new
> "Refactoring" topic. I prefer the first approach.
I would vote for the second approach, with a separate category for refactoring.
So if a bug fix involved some refactoring, which would you put it under? Or would you
expect separate CF entries for the refactoring and the fix?
__________________________________________________________________________________
Mike Blackwell | Technical Analyst, Distribution Services/Rollout Management | RR Donnelley
1750 Wallace Ave | St Charles, IL 60174-3401
Office: 630.313.7818
Mike.Blackwell@rrd.com
http://www.rrdonnelley.com
Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
>> I think that within the CF app, we should either rename the patch
>> topic "Bug Fixes" to "Bug Fixes/Refactoring", or introduce a new
>> "Refactoring" topic. I prefer the first approach.
> I would vote for the second approach, with a separate category for refactoring.
Ditto. Bug fixes are not at all like refactoring --- in particular, we'd
usually not consider refactoring as fit material for back-patching.
"Refactoring" seems rather a narrow definition of what might show up
in such a category, btw. Maybe "Code Beautification" would be a
suitable title? I'm bikeshedding though.
regards, tom lane
On 10/29/2015 01:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: >>> I think that within the CF app, we should either rename the patch >>> topic "Bug Fixes" to "Bug Fixes/Refactoring", or introduce a new >>> "Refactoring" topic. I prefer the first approach. > >> I would vote for the second approach, with a separate category for refactoring. > > Ditto. Bug fixes are not at all like refactoring --- in particular, we'd > usually not consider refactoring as fit material for back-patching. > > "Refactoring" seems rather a narrow definition of what might show up > in such a category, btw. Maybe "Code Beautification" would be a > suitable title? I'm bikeshedding though. "Miscellaneous"? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Ditto. Bug fixes are not at all like refactoring --- in particular, we'd > usually not consider refactoring as fit material for back-patching. > > "Refactoring" seems rather a narrow definition of what might show up > in such a category, btw. Maybe "Code Beautification" would be a > suitable title? I'm bikeshedding though. I think that there is value in limiting the number of topics. But I hardly but much weight on this. Any of the above are fine. -- Peter Geoghegan
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: >> "Refactoring" seems rather a narrow definition of what might show up >> in such a category, btw. Maybe "Code Beautification" would be a >> suitable title? I'm bikeshedding though. > > I think that there is value in limiting the number of topics. But I > hardly but much weight on this. Any of the above are fine. Can someone follow up and push this to the CF app? "Refactoring" seems to be the consensus. -- Peter Geoghegan
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: >>> "Refactoring" seems rather a narrow definition of what might show up >>> in such a category, btw. Maybe "Code Beautification" would be a >>> suitable title? I'm bikeshedding though. >> >> I think that there is value in limiting the number of topics. But I >> hardly but much weight on this. Any of the above are fine. > > Can someone follow up and push this to the CF app? "Refactoring" seems > to be the consensus. I guess I'm wondering whether there's really enough of this to need its own category. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: >>>> "Refactoring" seems rather a narrow definition of what might show up >>>> in such a category, btw. Maybe "Code Beautification" would be a >>>> suitable title? I'm bikeshedding though. >>> >>> I think that there is value in limiting the number of topics. But I >>> hardly but much weight on this. Any of the above are fine. >> >> Can someone follow up and push this to the CF app? "Refactoring" seems >> to be the consensus. > > I guess I'm wondering whether there's really enough of this to need > its own category. We have a category "Code comments" as well. Let's give it a shot so I am adding it. We could always remove it later if necessary. -- Michael
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: >> I guess I'm wondering whether there's really enough of this to need >> its own category. > > We have a category "Code comments" as well. Let's give it a shot so I > am adding it. We could always remove it later if necessary. Ugh, OK, whatever. That sounds like we have too many categories. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 11/6/15 11:34 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I guess I'm wondering whether there's really enough of this to need >>> its own category. >> >> We have a category "Code comments" as well. Let's give it a shot so I >> am adding it. We could always remove it later if necessary. > > Ugh, OK, whatever. That sounds like we have too many categories. Btw., the reason I added the Bug Fixes category a while back was that I felt that bug fixes have a slightly different process to them: 1. One might feel that bug fixes should be dealt with before new features. 2. There often isn't much "do we want this" discussion needed for bugs, only verification of the code. I think that was kind of successful.