Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hive-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hive-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2A93619901 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:35:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 15671 invoked by uid 500); 20 Apr 2016 19:35:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hive-dev-archive@hive.apache.org Received: (qmail 15596 invoked by uid 500); 20 Apr 2016 19:35:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hive.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@hive.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@hive.apache.org Received: (qmail 15584 invoked by uid 99); 20 Apr 2016 19:35:19 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:35:19 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id BDAD4C0452 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:35:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.802 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.802 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx2-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F-NC-nV90i8g for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:35:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com (mail-ig0-f171.google.com [209.85.213.171]) by mx2-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx2-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 5F6E55F282 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:35:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f171.google.com with SMTP id f1so137875924igr.1 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 12:35:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=CcFnpt+hyAACUtNbTh9kuchtoe8GpOk12zAKJUIRU4k=; b=uB4fmegA+G/mkemXKFTdDOA1gZOrChKqW20L5n7T+H2KS1VDmt+uNw1P/68SxcTav1 GjT2ruaZtUBN2JfhWEP/fkXS23HHcJV5raU312ig8SB5kWiG4vqKQs3lvacaLS0TSI9Z Fex3nBBBXy3tl6Vl2p8MaAXsp2xmOkWgZL8mERrEbmBAqjvO6UC/JU8CPFqUtiqz0hWe dRJI3s3HnbsgdTKsiLekmmbm2TIWPmIO4DjrjxgnSRstVtTY+eR7zv9vCeSIZ/KPh2d7 8HVEaejtnyr5oQTOSXaqFT8nJSmjgnOmkxSqbPSH/sC4EM/UwsUNWW44kmZdT11hZadJ V8BQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=CcFnpt+hyAACUtNbTh9kuchtoe8GpOk12zAKJUIRU4k=; b=UUUAOnY48phevXQKUKtwSBxWxSfE6UnN4wSvla/52TGmLPgT++10JQr+g5qTerTVRR lI2ORvGhI+jX5NZol9E1eY2p6IkLb4lLVALpMJvS5btce2KBcEQt8TAdtOWZy9JS8LdR 8GoPjna+CIe8R3brTh3BxqseQDIVjoiDcybUFJrVOLTmrHTIo57wY8J6QURNzrboi+4d JU1FhHf4lGlCb9uUvOIxdS8RECDBHg//8hZROLqunvN/LV8k1BYlSWJp0zPRCxRJ7n0l 0/2hMW1AgBaZa6nC0LBdifCPGyHPI+jrUuDjYGtI/Suf5AInN3VDtE2pE9Q0cBc5HpfR lXaQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUXTgICU3ye4OWyPJIbdIjkreRJO3NXEc87ozbppk+5SJNLiIKnDa6mU+edZ4zahsUoZ8TxrMsrIKNFug== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.55.6 with SMTP id n6mr5758029igp.60.1461180909401; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 12:35:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.79.109.139 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 12:35:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 12:35:09 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: JIRA Default Assignee From: Thejas Nair To: dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +1 I think it makes sense to leave the unassigned by default, having it assigned to default component owner makes it appear that they have signed up to work on it, which is misleading. I took at quick look at jira admin features to look at changing it a few days back, but couldn't spot the right place to make the change. On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Lars Francke wrote: > Hi everyone, > > currently there's a different policy for Default Assignee for lots of > subcomponents. Some are set to "Component Lead" which almost never is > correct imho. > > Unless there are strong objections I'll change this to "Unassigned" for all > components. > > Cheers, > Lars > > PS: I'm still looking for voters for my bylaws change in the user@ mailing > list :)