geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <>
Subject Re: [jira] Resolved: (GERONIMO-1738) Plugin migration to Maven 2: geronimo-deployment-plugin
Date Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:44:04 GMT
End users in this case are our developers who know about the current  
RTC limitations and about the work that is going on for m2 conversion.

I do not see any reason why we should not resolve (or close) the  
issues related to m2 work as it helps those of us working on the task  
to see what is done and what is pending.


On Jul 20, 2006, at 8:14 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:

> Hi Jacek,
> We were finding it difficult to manage the subtasks with all of them
> being in the "open" state even when their patches had been applied. It
> became quite confusing without any way of check marking the ones done.
> How is this different than all the other subtasks under 2071 that have
> gone into m2migration branch and thus has been marked resolved ?
> Example:
> It has been discussed on the devlist that m2 migration work would be
> in the m2migration branch. So end-users would know where to expect it
> and hopefully wouldn't/shouldn't go looking for it in the trunk.
> I'd like to learn something new everyday. So I don't mind being
> corrected and advised on how we can better manage this. Any other
> suggestions ?
> Cheers
> Prasad
> On 7/20/06, Jacek Laskowski <> wrote:
>> On 7/20/06, Prasad Kashyap (JIRA) <> wrote:
>> >      [ 
>> page=all ]
>> >
>> > Prasad Kashyap resolved GERONIMO-1738.
>> > --------------------------------------
>> >
>> >     Fix Version/s: 1.2
>> >        Resolution: Fixed
>> >
>> > Let's mark this fixed. The patch has gone into the sandbox/ 
>> svkmerge/m2migration. The whole branch will be up for RTC review  
>> anyway.
>> I disagree. Let's try to define when an issue is fixed. Let's face
>> what our end users face. If an end user consulted the issue today,
>> what would (s)he be left with? The answer is that (s)he will think
>> that the issue's fixed (I don't assume (s)he will eventually read the
>> description and draw his/her conclusion). This leads us to the
>> question whether it's really true. I believe, most if not all say  
>> that
>> it is not. Unless I'm mistaken in my thinking, I'd ask for re-opening
>> the issue and close it only when the patches have really been applied
>> to the trunk. As a matter of fact, we don't know yet when the  
>> svkmerge
>> branch will be merged so we don't really know what version the issue
>> is fixed in, do we?
>> Jacek
>> --
>> Jacek Laskowski

View raw message