Does it assign a ticket number to check with version control, which is worth the effort for developers?

Question

The practice I'm discussing is this: your project / product has a ticketing system for errors, features, etc. There is also source control. However, it always seems that there is reason to try to link the two together. In some places there is no check without a ticket number. In some development stores, there is no need to require a ticket for each check, and a small registration or two slides without an attached ticket number is also allowed.

Question : What makes this practice so rewarding?

I have seen this practice in different places of my career. This is especially noticeable in products such as Microsoft Team Foundation Server. I saw IBM with CMVC, their home source control system. I saw in Mingle and SVN, or SVN and Redmine, where you can associate tickets with checks by simply placing the ticket number in the commit message. In all these places, I really did not find it useful in my work, so I understand that it should be useful somewhere on the sidelines.

Answer 1

He tells you:

• something was really done
• who is responsible
• what has been changed
• the change was only due to a defect
• any regressions that you may find later
• checks your schedules, if any;)

Answer 2

, , , . , , , .

Answer 3

, . , diff, , , .

, , , "" , .

, , , . .

, .

Answer 4

, . , .

Answer 5

, . Trac , , , . FOR , - .

, , , . , , , .

Answer 6

- , . , - , , , , , , .. , , , , , , .

Answer 7

It can be useful if you can link both together, for example, we have a script that takes a commit message and adds to the bitrate if you specify the problem number. This is useful for managers and managing freaks, so they track the status of a problem in one place by reading messages, and do not violate developers directly.

Answer 8

Tells who made the fix: o)