Yep, definitely do-able.
Regards,
Alan
Jason Dillon wrote:
Only for bug types would be good.
--jason
On Jul 15, 2006, at 11:18 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Adding the fields so that they only show up for Geronimo Bugs is
simple enough. I can help. BTW, what about our RTC state
discussion? Can I go ahead and move on that idea?
Regards,
Alan
John Sisson wrote:
I'm fine with using fields instead, as it would be more work for
developers to use the wiki syntax (especially if they aren't
familiar with it). The main thing I'm trying to push is to have the
information there. I'm not so concerned how it looks. The only
downside I can see with separate fields is that if someone wants to
search for a string AFAIK they now would have to search in multiple
fields.
Any idea how much work would it be to add new fields? Note that
these new fields only make sense for bugs, not enhancements. Can we
do this without infra's help?
Here are the "proposed" fields for discussion. I have removed the
Problem field, as it probably doesn't make sense to have both the
existing Description field and a Problem field in the issue.
Description
A short description of the problem that is being fixed. (not
sure if we can have the usage text shown under the field differ
based on the issue type?).
Symptom
A description of the erroneous behavior. How does the user know
that they've hit this problem?
Cause
A description of the underlying defect which causes the symptom.
Solution
Overview of how the problem has been fixed.
Workaround
Techniques that can be used to avoid the problem, to minimize its
symptoms, or to repair damage which has occurred.
I am planning to document JIRA usage on the Wiki as part of
GERONIMO-2080, so the use of these fields would be covered in more
detail (e.g. example text).
Comments?
John
Jason Dillon wrote:
I think if we want to get folks to give us these sections of data
that we should probably add fields for them to fill in, not ask
them to use a wiki-based template.
--jason
On Jul 15, 2006, at 6:51 PM, John Sisson wrote:
Are your concerns about it being *way* to much related to the use
wiki markup which you feel may be unproductive (not easy to use)
and your solution to that is the suggestion of adding new fields,
or do you think it is *way* to much because one would have to
take more time thinking about and documenting a fix?
Thanks,
John
Aaron Mulder wrote:
The issue in question looks great, but I think asking everyone to
use
a specific format within their description is *way* too much to ask.
If you want to propose some fields be added (such as symptom and so
on) that would be better, but they'd have to have some descriptive
text so people could tell what to put where.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 7/15/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What does everyone think of adopting a format similar to what I
have
used in http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2194 for JIRA
issues for "bug fixes". I expect we would use a different
format for
enhancements. I got the idea from Derby's wiki page
http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/ReleaseNoteFormat .
When a JIRA for a bug is closed, we should ensure it's description
generally follows that format. When a new JIRA is created, it
should be
just a matter of copying some template wiki markup into the issue.
Following the format would have the following benefits:
* Makes developers think about the information that other
users/developers would want to know about the problem
* Helps users who searching for problems reported with the
release they
are running to get a better understanding of the issues with that
release and whether there are any workarounds to get them by
until the
next release.
If people are happy I'll add a wiki entry about the format.
Regards,
John
