cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Two methodological proposals
Date Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:14:26 GMT
On Monday 21 January 2008, Benson Margulies wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I never intended to ask for that level of minutia. It's the big, bad,
> bugs I'm after.

Yea.   For the most part, if I'm digging through something and find a 
bug, I log a JIRA for two types of things:

1) Something I don't have time to fix right now.   That's important to 
get logged so it doesn't get lost. 

2) Something a user is likely to hit through normal use of the product.   
Those need to get logged so they can be searched/found.   One popular 
use of Jira is to "watch" a bug to see when things are fixed, any 
discussion, etc.... If someone does say on the list "why is this not 
working", you can point them at the JIRA item.  

For the trivial spelling things, javadoc, basic code cleanup/reorg 
things, etc.... don't really need JIRA's.    It's mostly the things 
users may encounter and track.

-- 
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer, IONA
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog

Mime
View raw message