lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doug Cutting <>
Subject Re: jira workflow
Date Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:44:34 GMT
Steven Parkes wrote:
> It wasn't really about having a list of needs clarification. It was more
> about bounding open. I suppose it's my product development side showing.
> Generally we tried not to leave issues open indefinitely, for fear of
> not getting back to a customer. Perhaps there's nothing comparable in
> the ASF model.

Just because you've gotten back doesn't mean the issue is gone.  It 
sounds like the list we might need is of new issues that have not yet 
been responded to.  So perhaps adding a field indicating whether a bug 
is new, or has been responded to should be added.  Then we could try to 
keep the queue of new, as-yet-unresponded-to bugs small.  Would that help?

> 	A reviewer is someone whose opinion influences a committer.
> Mostly thinking about Jira state issues. If Jira state can be affected
> by more than committers (for example assigning to oneself, as a member
> of lucene-developers), should reviewers still just provide comments on
> other issues and leave it to a committer to bounce patches? Don't mean
> to make too much of this; perhaps it's obvious what one should and
> shouldn't do. Only trying to figure out how reviewers can contribute
> without going too far.

If someone is confident enough to reject a patch and they're not a 
committer, then they should still reject the patch.  If someone else 
disagrees with that judgement, then they can re-submit it.

> Well, if patch available is added, there's always the issue of moving
> issues into that state but I suppose contributors, if they're still
> around, will do that themselves.

So is Hadoop's workflow acceptable to all?


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

View raw message