I think a good middle ground is that we time box how long we let an
issue without a unit test sit around before it's kicked. If the
original reporter or another contributor has not provided a unit test
in a month, we should close it out.
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Bruce Snyder <bruce.sny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Rob Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I attempt weeding every few months - trouble is - its a jungle ;)
>
> Agreed, which is why I'm trying to get everyone to look at a few. Then
> we can move on to the 5.4.0 issues using the same scrutiny.
>
>> A lot of
>> the unresolved issues will take a lot of time to validate - as they do have
>> steps to reproduce - but they aren't junit tests
>
> HIram and I talked about that briefly. We agreed that we need to be
> more strict about this. Hiram is in favor of kicking any issue that
> doesn't have a test. I wouldn't go that far, my threshold is a
> requirement of steps to reproduce. So if neither of those are
> available, and the issue seems sufficiently unclear, just kick it.
>
>> Can you make the filter public btw ? I can't see it
>
> Sorry about that, it's now shared.
>
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)u8...@4vyy9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com/
