stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Deleted: (STDCXX-33) Implement C++0x regular expressions
Date Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:04:13 GMT
Eric Lemings wrote:
>  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 3:55 PM
>> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [jira] Deleted: (STDCXX-33) Implement C++0x 
>> regular expressions
>>
>> Eric Lemings wrote:
>>>  
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com] 
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 3:22 PM
>>>> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [jira] Deleted: (STDCXX-33) Implement C++0x 
>>>> regular expressions
>>>>
>>>> Eric Lemings wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Eric Lemings 
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 2:58 PM
>>>>>> To: 'dev@stdcxx.apache.org'
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [jira] Deleted: (STDCXX-33) Implement C++0x 
>>>>>> regular expressions
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com] 
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 2:30 PM
>>>>>>> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [jira] Deleted: (STDCXX-33) Implement C++0x 
>>>>>>> regular expressions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>>>>>> Could we move issues instead of deleting them?
>>>>>>> Also, we're still discussing what the plan is WRT how these
>>>>>>> components will be organized so these kinds of changes seem
>>>>>>> premature. In fact, I'm not sure I see why any issues need
>>>>>>> to be deleted or moved. Why can't the existing ones can be
>>>>>>> changed?
>>>>>> They are subtasks and subtasks can't be moved.  I tried.
>>>>> Also, subtasks can't be broken down into smaller issues.  Some of
>>>>> these issues will likely need to be subdivided into smaller chunks
>>>>> of work.
>>>> As a courtesy to the rest of us working on the project it would
>>>> be nice to let us know what restructuring changes you'd like to
>>>> make, and wait for feedback before making them. Especially
>>>> deleting issues should be brought up because doing so not only
>>>> permanently removes them from the database but also breaks any
>>>> links pointing to such issues.
>>> Jira is pretty smart.  It allows you to relink such issues before
>>> deleting issues so there are no broken links.
>> This is now a broken link:
>>    http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-33
>>
>>> And the issues are still in the database.  I just moved them from
>>> subtasks into individual issues.  Or you'd prefer to keep the
>>> duplicate issues?
>> I would prefer us to have a plan before we start moving issues
>> around or permanently deleting them.
>>
>> As it is, the rest of us are left to guess what's happening
>> with the existing issues, why they're being deleted, why new
>> ones are being created, or where you plan to stop. If you want
>> to change/improve things you need to let us in on your plan
>> ahead of time to make sure your changes don't adversely affect
>> anyone or that there isn't a better way to go about implementing
>> them. It's possible that we'd end up doing exactly what you did
>> in the end. The big difference is that we'd all understand and
>> (hopefully) agree with what's going on.
> 
> Initiative...momentum got the better of me I suppose.  :)  Sorry.
> 
> So what is it, in particular, that we all do NOT understand or agree
> with?  I'll clarify if I can... or haven't already.

I thought I already said that I don't agree with deleting
issues or making these types of structural changes w/o having
a plan in place. What is your plan? What if someone else has
a different plan?

We discussed integrating the Jira TR1 components into the
others (deleting issues wasn't mentioned). You proposed adding
"(C++ 0x)" to the subject and I suggested adding a field for
the version of the standard instead. We haven't finished the
discussion yet but you've already created a number of new
issues that don't follow either of the two proposed
conventions. There's no "(C++ 0x)" in the Summary and no new
field indicating the version of the standard, and links to
the deleted issues are now irreparably dead.

Martin

Mime
View raw message