Good point Jason, thats probably a better way to look at it. What prevents us from installing the plugin? Perf?
On 7/28/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hrm... I'm still unsure that we need this. But... dunno, now that I think about it... its just a way to allow reporters to group their issues. I wish we could get the JIRA label plugin installed, and then the issues could just be labeled. --jason On Jul 25, 2006, at 1:11 PM, Sachin Patel wrote: fyi http://www.eclipse.org/webtools/adopters/ On Jul 25, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: I don't understand exactly what "adopter required" means. Someone is required to adopt the issue? I don't get it :-( I also don't see how companies/customers should get any such entity status in jira for an open source project. Does one need to give more priority to an issue from IBM than an issue submitted by joe user? I don't think so... at least not based on that critical alone. --jason On Jul 25, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Sachin Patel wrote: As the Geronimo user base grows, it is important that we be able to distinguish between JIRAs open during a development cycle to those that are being hit in the field or requested by companies who either use Geronimo or build products and or plugins on top of it. So I suggest we provide a restricted "adopter required" field in JIRA. This adopter field would be exposed to JIRA users who request and identify themselves as adopters. So just like our query for available patches, we can easily query these and help ensure that these issues that companies face get the necessary attention and help resolve them faster then they would be otherwise. Thoughts? -sachin -sachin
