geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <>
Subject Re: Terminology and status
Date Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:45:51 GMT
I would rather see the community use JIRA to manage information of  
this nature.

I don't think that using the STATUS file is a good idea... at least  
not for Geronimo and its projects.

The RTC issue type was added to help with some of this, but from  
recent experience I've seen that no one is actually using the  
workflow features that Alan added to manage the state of the review.   
I think we should drop this issue type and instead add a "Review"  
field to all issues which could either be:

1) A simple checkbox, checked when reviewed...

2) A combobox: requires review, reviewed or not required.

With #1, you can then query JIRA for issues with patch info checked  
and review unchecked to see what is pending.

#2 is similar but also allows for stuff w/o patches (like m2migration  
merges) that need review too.


On Aug 2, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

> Hash: SHA1
> People have been referring to things requiring votes as
> 'RTCs'.
> Everyone *please* stop using RTC in this manner.  RTC is a
> development model; what it and CTR are concerned with are
> patches.  Please call them patches.  Changes are patches;
> RTC and CTR are how they get applied.  If you said something
> about 'an RTC' outside Geronimo, no-one would have the least
> idea what you were talking about.  This is *not* a place
> where it's necessary for us to invent new nomenclature.
> There has been some discussion about keeping status in
> the wiki.  The wiki is a 'pull' mechanism; if you don't
> actively go looking for it, you won't get it.  I have
> updated the STATUS file in trunk from its incubation
> content to something more current, and have set it up to
> be mailed to the list every Wednesday night.  I suggest
> filling things in there so all the various issues are
> listed in a single places, along with who has voted on
> patches, critical issues, etc.  Right now information is
> scattered all over the place.
> Take a look at (or at
> if you prefer the full URL) to see how another project
> uses the STATUS file as a central repository of such
> info.
> If the consensus is to not use the STATUS file, that's
> cool.  But I decided that *doing* it was more productive
> that just proposing to possibly set it up.
> - --
> #ken	P-)}
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Ken.Coar.Org/
> Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/
> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
> 2feNTUraxSxuKY2CT3Bk8m8s2H/iObbgt+ILidYnKXMU8FKEFW2nCzZBPpCEi1cO
> CaawPX7PhMltfhbaJquR4qZM1VRUxd2YfyDzvJEYIbP1c166TgV5Q4FZjnt8lFJR
> 96KAuOpSqTI=
> =W2iC

View raw message