Hi Ben, I agree. In general, I too do see that this artificial separation is adding little/no value. This would also simplify a bit the build scripts: instead of having to parse the PR name to get the issue number, we could just use the available PR number.

El 14 jul 2019, a las 10:30, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> escribió:

Some improvements are often discovered, fixed and submitted all in the same moment - prior to their being an existing Issue logged. When we were using MCZ files that had no facility to hang a discussion on them, it was a good policy that **every** contribution required an Issue as a place for discussion and approval. However we are now using Pull Requests that provide such a facility for discussion and approval.

There is not much difference between an "Issue" and a "PR" - indeed their index numbers are interleaved. So when we already have a PR ready to go, it seems redundant to first create an matching Issue just to have something to close. It seems particularly redundant when an Issues is created and closed within the same hour a PR is submitted and unnecessary double-handling.

So I propose that pre-fixed-issues that a submitted with a code contribution require a PR-only and "Issues" are left for reports without an immediate fix that require longer term visibility.

cheers -ben

P.S. Thank you Torsten for your stream of small fixes.

<x.png>

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 10:31 AM Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:

Some improvements are often discovered, fixed and submitted all in the same moment - prior to their being an existing Issue logged. When we were using MCZ files that had no facility to hang a discussion on them, it was a good policy that **every** contribution required an Issue as a place for discussion and approval. However we are now using Pull Requests that provide such a facility for discussion and approval.

There is not much difference between an "Issue" and a "PR" - indeed their index numbers are interleaved. So when we already have a PR ready to go, it seems redundant to first create an matching Issue just to have something to close. It seems particularly redundant when an Issues is created and closed within the same hour a PR is submitted and unnecessary double-handling.

So I propose that pre-fixed-issues that a submitted with a code contribution require a PR-only and "Issues" are left for reports without an immediate fix that require longer term visibility.

I agree!

cheers -ben

P.S. Thank you Torsten for your stream of small fixes.

[image: x.png]

-- Cyril Ferlicot https://ferlicot.fr