Response in line: > -----Original Message----- > From: Santhosh Edukulla [mailto:santhosh.eduku...@citrix.com] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 2:02 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Components in JIRA and bug assignment > > Not Sure, if it falls under similar lines\requires a separate thread. I am > trying > to see if there is a way we can add a component field, primary owner fields > for component available to be assigned for a given review under > Http://reviews.apache.org.
While we want to extend JIRA and add various components to address current limitations, I'm not certain if this is in the same scope. I also have to admit, that I only use JIRA as basic user, so I don't know if what you are asking is doable. Perhaps someone else can? > > This way i will select component as "Automation", branch as "4.1" and so etc , > save that query on my dashboard and everytime i login, i can see reviews > based upon my query saved. We can create a separate component Automation, so you can create filters as described. > > If this facility is already there, then i will search more to find it out. > > Regards, > Santhosh > ________________________________________ > From: Chip Childers [chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 1:45 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Components in JIRA and bug assignment > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 05:40:06PM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > > > [Animesh>] Chip does that mean you are open to folks assigning tickets > > to others? Should this be posted in the original thread > > http://markmail.org/thread/btovj6t6opqxge5q. because the threads > where > > Ilya reopened the discussion has received few responses from Alex, > > Sheng, Alena, Sudha, RamG > > > > No, that just means that I was explaining the technical capabilities of Jira. > > I'm -0, so move forward if everyone else continues to agree. I still don't > think > it's the right way to operate, but I'm not interested in blocking it if > everyone > else wants to do it this way. > > I won't reiterate my previous reasoning, since you pointed to that thread. > > Cheers! > > -chip
