On 31 October 2013 14:24, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:37:02 +0000, sebb wrote: >> >> On 31 October 2013 13:26, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hello. >>> >>> Are there criteria about filling the "due-to" attribute of an issue >>> record in the "changes.xml" file? >>> >>> Current practice seems that reporting an issue does not by itself >>> warrants such an attribution. >>> Indeed, as I understand it, the attribute is a place-holder for when >>> an issue is fixed by a contributor who hasn't commit access. IMHO, >>> this implies that the reporter (or another contributor) provided a >>> patch or non-trivial insights that led to the fix. >>> >>> IOW, when a developer with commit access fixes a bug or implements a >>> feature request mostly by himself, the name of the original reporter >>> should not appear in the release notes, as if he were the contributor. >> >> >> The person who raised the bug still took the trouble to do so. > > > My question is still: is it sufficient? > Without filing a bug report, the reporter is harming himself.
Not necessarily. I've certainly reported bugs that don't affect me. > Also, some reports are only feature requests. I deem it quite unfair that > the release notes would contain lines such as > * MATH-123456789: Algorithm Xxx implemented. Thanks to <reporter>. So? They still made the effort. Maybe they did not provide a patch (yet) because it was not clear whether it would be accepted or not. And then the issue got fixed before they had a chance to provide the patch. The JIRA issue itself provides very little clue as to how much effort the person has expended. But regardless, does it matter? It's probably quite a big step for some people to file the JIRA. But one can of course add comments to the due-to text which can be used to clarify the perceived level of contribution. > >> Without the report, would the bug have been noticed and fixed as quickly? > > > With the report, but without patch, would the bug have been fixed at all? > [That's interesting: If the report is as important as the fix, then > shouldn't > all reports (even unfixed issues) be part of the release notes?] > > >> IOW, the bug fix is still due-to the reporter, even if the >> contribution is just the bug report. > > > [Then, all these years, _many_ attributions were not acknowledged in > this way.] > > I understand the argument that reporters are important in the development > chain. But my point is that it is unfair to have people who notice a bug > and people who analyze and fix that bug on the same footing. > It makes sense to have a name in the release notes only if the person > contributed to the implementation; unless I'm mistaken, it is the usual > meaning of such references in such a file. > Doing otherwise will just make this information meaningless and useless. > > Detailed role attribution can be retrieved from the bug-tracking system: > when one reports a bug, he is referred to as the "reporter" there. > > > > Regards, > Gilles > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
