Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <429E4130.7020601@debrunners.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 16:13:52 -0700
From: Daniel John Debrunner <djd@debrunners.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Derby Development <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed JIRA workflow changes
References: <429DE714.8030207@sun.com> <429DEBC4.4080307@sun.com>
 <429DFB5B.1000801@debrunners.com> <429E0502.30609@sun.com>
In-Reply-To: <429E0502.30609@sun.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

David Van Couvering wrote:

> 
> The intent behind assigning an item was not to force someone to look at
> something but to allow each person to know what items are on their
> plate, either to fix, review, commit, or close.  Perhaps that's not an
> issue; I was trying to address Kathey's concerns.  I do agree assigning
> a patch review could discourage others from looking at the patch, but in
> most cases you're doing well if you get *one* person to look at your
> patch, let alone multiple people...

And part of my point was other Apache projects must have dealt with this
issue, so let's learn from them and not invent a new process.

I do like the idea of having patches only in Jira entries, the apache
httpd page said a patch must be attached to a bug to be considered. That
in itself would be a good rule, at least then all patches could be found
through an open issue query at Jira.


Dan.