cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Diephouse <dan.diepho...@mulesource.com>
Subject Re: Two methodological proposals
Date Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:09:00 GMT
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Benson Margulies wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1200962076.7032.3.camel@bim-1330.basistech.net"
 type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 19:25 -0500, Glen Mazza wrote:
  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">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.  
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
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.

--benson


  </pre>
</blockquote>
Yeah, I gotta support Benson here. Its very helpful from a standpoint
of a user who runs into a bug IMO. It shouldn't be too finally grained
though, so use good judgement :-)<br>
<br>
- Dan<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
Dan Diephouse
MuleSource
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mulesource.com">http://mulesource.com</a>
| <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://netzooid.com/blog">http://netzooid.com/blog</a></pre>
</body>
</html>

Mime
View raw message