Done. Components are now ["site", "spark", "splunk", "mongodb", "avatica", "build", "core"].
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > That sounds about right (except that we use the word "adapter" rather > than "connector"). > > If anyone would like to volunteer to be the default assignee for a > particular component that would be MARVELOUS. > > Julian > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think we should have an actual "core" component. Otherwise it is hard to >> distinguish uncategorized and core issues. Nick, any hesitancy with that? >> >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> In that case, I suggest the following as our project components: avatica, >>> mongo-connector, spark-connector, splunk-connector, build. Anything not >>> marked with a component would be "core" by default. This sound about right? >>> >>> Seems I lack sufficient JIRA privileges to administer components. Julian >>> would you mind terribly doing the honors? >>> >>> -n >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > I'd much rather have too few components than too many. Otherwise there >>> > is a significant chance that bugs will be categorized in the wrong >>> > component. >>> > >>> > Avatica makes sense because it is very clear cut. The various adapters >>> > e.g. MongoDB make sense also. Other areas I'd need some convincing. >>> > >>> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > > Heya, >>> > > >>> > > Does it make sense to introduce component labels into JIRA? For my own >>> > > needs, this would make it easier for me to find issues related to >>> > avatica. >>> > > Presumably others could find this useful as well. >>> > > >>> > > Thoughts? >>> > > -n >>> > >>>
