Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cxf-dev-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 16895 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2008 02:15:04 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Jan 2008 02:15:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 20992 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2008 02:14:54 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cxf-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 20947 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2008 02:14:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cxf-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 20938 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jan 2008 02:14:54 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:14:54 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [64.79.194.121] (HELO mesa2.com) (64.79.194.121) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:14:38 +0000 Received: from [24.147.10.180] (account jdkulp HELO dilbert.boston.amer.iona.com) by mesa2.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 1771796 for cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:14:27 -0500 From: Daniel Kulp To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Two methodological proposals Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:14:26 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <1200947976.7697.1.camel@bim-1330.basistech.net> <1200964937.20763.52.camel@gmazza-desktop> <1200967489.7032.5.camel@bim-1330.basistech.net> In-Reply-To: <1200967489.7032.5.camel@bim-1330.basistech.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801212114.26442.dkulp@apache.org> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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