Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: 216.86.168.178 is neither permitted
 nor denied by domain of geir@pobox.com)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <f982cec50702052143q1bea28bkca96bc92fd11d1f4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c3755b3a0702050810i18467b5fv67d055eba07b04d9@mail.gmail.com>
 <f982cec50702052143q1bea28bkca96bc92fd11d1f4@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <B77294CC-8368-4C8F-A4E5-D51AC8B644C8@pobox.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geir@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [jira][general] Good issue resolution guideline update
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 10:35:18 -0500
To: dev@harmony.apache.org


On Feb 6, 2007, at 12:43 AM, Yang Paulex wrote:
>
> I also had some thoughts to keep the patch history, recently I  
> reviewed and
> commented some patches, and then the contributor submitted new
> patches(thanks!), but they removed the old ones from JIRA.  
> Sometimes it
> makes me confused, because the patches' names are same but they are  
> actually
> a new version, further, it makes the former discussion on the JIRA  
> invalid
> because they are based on the old patches. So I'd like to propose  
> this for
> discussion:
>
> 5. if for any reasons, someone needed to submit a new patch for  
> some issue,
> don't delete the old one, but named the new ones with version number.
>
>
> Thoughts? Concerns? Objections?

+1

>>
>> SY, Alexey
>>
>> [1] http://harmony.apache.org/issue_resolution_guideline.html
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Paulex Yang
> China Software Development Labotary
> IBM