I would rather see the community use JIRA to manage information of
this nature.
I don't think that using the STATUS file is a good idea... at least
not for Geronimo and its projects.
The RTC issue type was added to help with some of this, but from
recent experience I've seen that no one is actually using the
workflow features that Alan added to manage the state of the review.
I think we should drop this issue type and instead add a "Review"
field to all issues which could either be:
1) A simple checkbox, checked when reviewed...
2) A combobox: requires review, reviewed or not required.
With #1, you can then query JIRA for issues with patch info checked
and review unchecked to see what is pending.
#2 is similar but also allows for stuff w/o patches (like m2migration
merges) that need review too.
--jason
On Aug 2, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
People have been referring to things requiring votes as
'RTCs'.
Everyone *please* stop using RTC in this manner. RTC is a
development model; what it and CTR are concerned with are
patches. Please call them patches. Changes are patches;
RTC and CTR are how they get applied. If you said something
about 'an RTC' outside Geronimo, no-one would have the least
idea what you were talking about. This is *not* a place
where it's necessary for us to invent new nomenclature.
There has been some discussion about keeping status in
the wiki. The wiki is a 'pull' mechanism; if you don't
actively go looking for it, you won't get it. I have
updated the STATUS file in trunk from its incubation
content to something more current, and have set it up to
be mailed to the list every Wednesday night. I suggest
filling things in there so all the various issues are
listed in a single places, along with who has voted on
patches, critical issues, etc. Right now information is
scattered all over the place.
Take a look at http://tinyurl.com/hzwes (or at
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS
if you prefer the full URL) to see how another project
uses the STATUS file as a central repository of such
info.
If the consensus is to not use the STATUS file, that's
cool. But I decided that *doing* it was more productive
that just proposing to possibly set it up.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRNDmpZrNPMCpn3XdAQKWpgP+L6fVMia9/QIb/QRX6Q9PvW3GI7+TFTMe
2feNTUraxSxuKY2CT3Bk8m8s2H/iObbgt+ILidYnKXMU8FKEFW2nCzZBPpCEi1cO
CaawPX7PhMltfhbaJquR4qZM1VRUxd2YfyDzvJEYIbP1c166TgV5Q4FZjnt8lFJR
96KAuOpSqTI=
=W2iC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
