On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:35:50 +0100, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
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.
* Purporting allusions about me not being generous enough to thank
someone who has reported an issue. [This is false.]
* Defusing the original request by alleging that it does not matter.
[Even as I mentioned contradicting behaviours.]
Non-controversial would have been: I do <this thing> in <this
circumstance> and <that thing> in <that circumstance>.
You started a thread with
a specific question, and people answered with their opinion about
this
topic.
No, they inferred things about my supposedly evil reasons for raising
this question.
Gilles
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
