I would suggest though, that we adopt this standard primarily for existing open issues and new issues.
Regards, Mike On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Mike Percy <[email protected]> wrote: > Great! +1 from me :) > > Regards, > Mike > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Israel Ekpo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Mike, >> >> I have created a wiki page to document the various classifications. >> >> This can be a starting point. >> >> We can provide additional examples or clarifications for each >> classification as needed. >> >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLUME/Classification+of+JIRA+Issues >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Mike Percy <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hi Israel, >> > It does seem somewhat arbitrary how issues are classified sometimes. :) >> At >> > release time in the past I have gone and reclassified stuff that I >> thought >> > was in the wrong place. >> > >> > Thanks for bringing up the point. Do you have any specific suggestions? >> > Personally I had forgotten there was a Documentation type and agree it's >> > good practice to mark doc JIRAs as such. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Mike >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Israel Ekpo <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > Hello Everyone, >> > > >> > > I have ran into JIRA issues like >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLUME-1621 where very important >> > > features within Flume are not documented properly or not documented at >> > all >> > > and we need to address the problem. >> > > >> > > In this particular instance, I think the issue should have been >> > classified >> > > as Improvement or Documentation rather than as a Bug. >> > > >> > > Should these be classified as Bugs, Improvements or Documentation. >> > > >> > > So my question now is: >> > > >> > > In general, when do we classify the JIRA issues as: >> > > >> > > - Improvement >> > > - Documentation >> > > - Bug >> > > - Wish >> > > - Task >> > > - New Feature >> > > >> > > Are there any guidelines that could help in classifying the issues >> > > properly? >> > > >> > >> > >
