cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glen Mazza <glen.ma...@verizon.net>
Subject Re: Two methodological proposals
Date Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:22:17 GMT
Am Montag, den 21.01.2008, 19:34 -0500 schrieb Benson Margulies:
> On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 19:25 -0500, Glen Mazza wrote:
> > I disagree with both.  The CVS commit log, not JIRA, is the
> > authoritative source of changes made to the product, anyone who needs
> > that level of detail can go through those logs.  JIRA is for bugs not
> > fixed yet.  
> 
> Glen,
> 
> I'm more interested in defending the first than the second.
> User hits problem. What do we want user to do? Search JIRA and see if it
> is a known problem. We don't expect users to search the svn commit logs.
> 

Normally users check the user mailing list archives, and if nothing is
found there, ask a question on the mailing list.  Nothing is 100%, but
if the issue has been fixed in the latest version, someone will probably
open their mouth and the person will be informed.  They may even get
more information on the matter by asking on the user list, because the
response can be customized to their problem.

A JIRA search, even under the best of circumstances, would probably only
provide an 80% success rate of seeing if something changed. Those who
*really* need to know if a class changed would still need to search the
svn logs or use ViewVC to check file change history.

Still, I haven't had time much for commits, but I'll be more liberal in
my usage of JIRA if you would like.  Trivial matters (spelling fixes and
the like), I will continue to not bother with JIRA, however.  If you
wish to type in a JIRA over minor changes of that nature you are most
welcome, but I suspect you'll get bored of doing so after awhile.  All
in all, working code is more important than beautiful documentation.

Regards,
Glen


> --benson
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message