On 10/31/2013 05:18 PM, Gilles wrote: > 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?
I do not read any controversial comments here. You started a thread with a specific question, and people answered with their opinion about this topic. Here is mine: I did not make a difference between a simple reporter and a contributor that also provides a patch. In case the patch is provided by a different person than the original reporter, I added both. Actually I think that a person who raised the interest on a specific feature / topics, which then really gets included in the software is also worthwhile to mention as it really helps improve our software. E.g. most of the things I did were related to feature requests by other people and I am quite happy about that, because I know that somebody really wants to use this feature. If there should be two separate fields (reporter, patch-provider) or just one, hmmm it depends on personal preference imho. I am fine with just one field, but would not have a big problem if we have separate ones. Thomas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
