Benson Margulies wrote on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 22:03:12 -0400: > However, I thank Joe for pointing out that I was careful to avoid stating a > requirement when I didn't know that one existed. >
Thanks for clarifying. To summarize, having all patches go via JIRA is one possible way of working, but there is no requirement to use it --- other ways are possible too. > I've never hung out on an ASF project that (still) used email patches as the > common practice, so I was unaware of it. > > So, if you asked me, I'd say that using JIRA or BZ items is good > organizational hygiene, giving more people visibility into the process and > making it harder to drop a good contribution on the floor -- but if you have > a working system involving an official mailing list, you have a working > system. > FWIW, what Subversion uses: http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/community-guide.html#patches http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/community-guide.html#patch-manager Briefly, all patches go to dev@, and only the unlucky patches that were neither applied nor rejected get stashed in the issue tracker to avoid being dropped on the floor. > On the other hand, I think that we all agree that a patch mailed by personal > email to a committer who commits it is not a good thing. > Yup. The difference being whether or not the dev list is CCed. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
