geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Prasad Kashyap" <goyathlay.geron...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Resolved: (GERONIMO-1738) Plugin migration to Maven 2: geronimo-deployment-plugin
Date Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:14:03 GMT
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: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2201

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 <jacek@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
> On 7/20/06, Prasad Kashyap (JIRA) <dev@geronimo.apache.org> wrote:
> >      [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1738?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
> http://www.laskowski.net.pl
>

Mime
View raw message