lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steven Parkes" <>
Subject jira workflow
Date Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:19:31 GMT
As a member of a number of Lucene subprojects dev lists, I've been
comparing the way the Jira workflow is used on the different projects.
In particular, I've been noting the difference between the workflows
that Lucene Java and Hadoop use.  Hadoop in particular has a state for
"patch submitted" which, as it's used on Hadoop, seems to facilitate
communication. State changes (open->patch submitted,
patch-submitted->open) seem to help communications between contributors
and reviewers. Looking at the Lucene Java Jira, sometimes "[patch]" is
put at the beginning of the description of the issue to indicate
something similar, but this isn't used too consistently and doesn't seem
to be as effective. It also requires custom filters to easily see all
issues in the "patch submitted" state.

Is there sufficient interest to consider this for Lucene Java? (I'd
write "any interest", but since I'm interested, there's at least some.)

There are a couple of issues around the Hadoop workflow I'm aware of.
One is that once an issue is closed, it can't be reopened. As I
understand it, this is because on Hadoop, they use the Jira feature
which allows automated generation of release notes. As someone who is
responsible for tracking the changes between releases for my company,
this is actually a win for me, so I like the way Hadoop does it. But it
does add the step of needing to start a new Jira issue rather than just
reopening an old one.

The other thing I was thinking of was the case where we say "if you're
working on something, go ahead and submit a patch even if it's not
polished or you aren't sure you want it to be a candidate for the trunk.
Let others look at it." I think that's clearly a good thing to have, but
I wonder what the best way to handle it in Jira is. What state should be

There are quite a few open issues in Jira. Makes me a little
uncomfortable, since in my experience, when you get really long lists of
issues that are not addressed, the effectiveness of an issue tracking
system seems to drop dramatically. Anybody else think this? I've got
time to contribute to cleanup if there's sufficient interest.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message