What we do here is practice open *development*. That means if it is a foregone conclusion that some jira ticket gets opened with a patch already cooked up for it, you're not doing it right. The entire development process needs to be subject to public scrutiny, not just the end result.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > > > On 11/02/2015 09:50 AM, David Jencks wrote: > >> I haven’t looked at what they are doing and don’t expect I will. >> However, I’m assuming that jira changes all get to the dev list, as in all >> other projects I’ve worked on. I don’t see the point in duplicating a >> proposal between a jira issue and a separate dev list post with the same >> information. And I don’t have a problem with people working quickly. I >> would like to see that the jira issue explains sufficiently what is >> proposed or implemented in enough detail that an interested party can see >> how it fits in with the code and the purpose of the project. So I’d be >> concerned if the jira descriptions were “fix bug” or “implement javaee7” >> but possibly not if there are reasonable explanations of what is being >> proposed or done. >> > > What has been described to me is that a ticket is filed proposing a major > new feature, and then seconds later a *large* patch lands implementing that > feature, and the ticket is closed, and discussion is shut down, because > it's a done deal. > > -- > Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen > http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
