But, I think that the user who hasn't an apache account can't create an issue in JIRA.
On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 10:51 AM Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>> Maybe people should not file a bug for hardware-specific issues that > >>> affect only their specific configuration. As you point out, it is > >>> unlikely that anyone else will be able to fix or test such an issue. > >>> So, for those cases, maybe we should encourage people not to file an > >>> issue but rather to fix it right away, and help in any way possible. > >>> > >>> In contrast, for things that affect the RTOS itself, build system, > >>> etc., we would let people file issues. > >> I think that keeping track of issues, prioritized and categorized by > >> sub-system and platform would be of benefit to many users. Attempt to > >> fix every bug on every hardware configuration is not humanly possible. > >> I think fixing bugs would have to be like committers responding to PRs: > >> People will have have "scratch what itches" (or something like that). > >> But just knowing that something has a bug is useful information to users. > > I dont know how github issues work but I know that in Jira, issues can be > > tagged with any number of "tags". Then you can filter by tags and see all > > issues with that tag. > > > > Utilizing this feature, we could have a tag for each supported MCU, and a > > tag for each supported board. > > > > When someone is thinking of using NuttX for their project with a particular > > board, they could look up the known issues and then make an informed > > decision if those issues might affect their project and, if so, if they are > > willing to scratch that itch and fix that issue. > > > > Then obviously what I said before no longer applies and we would encourage > > people to file issues provided they tag them correctly. > > I like that idea of tagging issues. That could prove very useful. > Doesn't github support user-defined tags? I have never used them, but > they seem a little primitive from what I have read. The issues in the > top-level TODO list are not tagged, but grouped by functional areas and > would be unusable if they were not so grouped. A long list of old > ungrouped, untagged github issues would be similarly useless. > > I am not a big fan of selecting a tools then defining your management > processes to match the tool. I prefer to think the other way around. I > spent decades as as system engineer and system architect and I have > top-down thinking in my bones. > > I really don't know anything of significance about Jira so it would be > irresponsible for me to advocate anything either way. Github issues are > great places for discussing current topics. I am more familiar with > Bitbucket issues, and I assume they are similar. My experience is that > if no one takes immediate action on an issue, it lingers, people lose > interest, and the issue fades from group memory. Then years later they > are there in the issue list, out of context, possibly inactionable. > > Issues are good for the immediate reactions to and dialog about an > issue. But that doesn't it really constitutes management of issues. > > At one point Brennan demonstrated that you can link a Jira issue to a > PR. I wonder... can you also link a Jira issue to a github issue. If > so, then why not use both? Users could enter issues into Github, email, > or Jirah. Github issues could support some dialog. Jira might then > provide the missing project management component. > > And what do we do with the old issues still in the Bitbucket Issues? Or > the issues in the TODO list. There are usually issues raised in emails > on daily basis. Most of the time, these are worked out through through > email exchanges, others are not and are just forgotten. > > Greg > >
