[mapguide-internals] Suggestion for improving the RFC process

[Tom Fukushima]

+1 Tom. I'm in favor of this. Do we need to RFC this?  I hope not; let's just update the RFC template.

And as far as I can see it barely adds any overhead, and may make it easier for even the developer to find the relevant ticket since they could go through the RFC instead of having to go through trac.


-----Original Message-----
From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jason Birch
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 1:20 PM
To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals] Suggestion for improving the RFC process

I really like the current practice of referencing the ticket number in a
changeset, and backreferencing the changesets from the ticket.  With
this in place, linking to the tickets from the RFC would allow
interested parties to see exactly what changes were made to the code as
part of an RFC.  It would also, in some cases, allow seeing the initial
enhancement request that caused the RFC to be written.  As part of this
process, the enhancement request could be more easily closed when the
ticket is marked as complete.

I'd be in favour of adding this to the RFC documents in a "Related
Tickets" section.  Would this create too much overhead for the RFC
implementers?

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: Zac Spitzer
Subject: [mapguide-internals] Suggestion for improving the RFC process

I would like to suggest adding a extra step for the RFC process that
involves adding any trac tickets
relating to the the RFC to the RFC page
_______________________________________________
mapguide-internals mailing list
mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals