Mailing-List: contact dev-help@felix.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@felix.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of heavy@ungoverned.org designates
 209.85.214.177 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4F5A3081.7000807@ungoverned.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:32:01 -0500
From: "Richard S. Hall" <heavy@ungoverned.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@felix.apache.org
Subject: Re: patching process for ultra-fine revisions
References: 
 <CAA-SZJH2Uj6URLLGTnBHYOikUyV-_EfufHMZ=o5rc_D0TWFiVg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA-SZJH2Uj6URLLGTnBHYOikUyV-_EfufHMZ=o5rc_D0TWFiVg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

You're over thinking it. :-)

Opening an issue is probably the best way, since it enables a single 
work pattern for making sure things don't get lost. Don't worry about 
conserving bits.

Besides, we feel really productive when we can resolve open issues... ;-)

-> richard

On 3/9/12 11:25 , Reuben Garrett wrote:
> What's our normal process for submitting patches against very small
> sections of the code base (e.g. one-word javadoc corrections)?  For
> example, I noticed that the default timeout value for iPOJO's @Temporal
> annotation [1] is javadoc'd as "true", but is actually a long with default
> 3000.
>
> It seems like overkill to open a JIRA ticket for that, although maybe it's
> not a big deal if we're not worried about exhausting the ticket number
> namespace.  One could also group together several such changes, although
> this raises the question of how many changes are sufficient, and delays
> corrections until that threshold is reached.
>
> Sorry if I'm over-thinking this - I'm still a fledgling.
>
> ~ RNPG
>
> [1] :
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/releases/org.apache.felix.ipojo.annotations-1.8.0/src/main/java/org/apache/felix/ipojo/handler/temporal/Temporal.java
>