On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:53:29 +0000, sebb wrote:
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?
It's just false.
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.
Do we need to find corner cases just to not address the broader issue?
The JIRA issue itself provides very little clue as to how much effort
the person has expended.
Really?
Attached patches are certainly more telling than a "Thanks to" line...
But regardless, does it matter? It's probably quite a big step for
some people to file the JIRA.
Did I deny that?
How is it related to what I asked?
But one can of course add comments to the due-to text which can be
used to clarify the perceived level of contribution.
That's what I'm suggesting: a fair report.
So, is it possible to specify "Reported by" and "Fixed by"? That would
be
quite fine.
I repeat: up until recently I never noticed undue (IMHO) attributions.
That would mean that the practice was _not_ as you seem to describe.
Why would my question be met with dismissing comments?
There is a field in "changes.xml": how and when do we fill it?
I thought I knew (by looking at what others did) and now I see that it
does not fit in some cases. Thus I ask for clarification.
Why does this have to be controversial?
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
