End users in this case are our developers who know about the current
RTC limitations and about the work that is going on for m2 conversion.
I do not see any reason why we should not resolve (or close) the
issues related to m2 work as it helps those of us working on the task
to see what is done and what is pending.
--jason
On Jul 20, 2006, at 8:14 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
Hi Jacek,
We were finding it difficult to manage the subtasks with all of them
being in the "open" state even when their patches had been applied. It
became quite confusing without any way of check marking the ones done.
How is this different than all the other subtasks under 2071 that have
gone into m2migration branch and thus has been marked resolved ?
Example: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2201
It has been discussed on the devlist that m2 migration work would be
in the m2migration branch. So end-users would know where to expect it
and hopefully wouldn't/shouldn't go looking for it in the trunk.
I'd like to learn something new everyday. So I don't mind being
corrected and advised on how we can better manage this. Any other
suggestions ?
Cheers
Prasad
On 7/20/06, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/20/06, Prasad Kashyap (JIRA) <[email protected]> wrote:
> [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1738?
page=all ]
>
> Prasad Kashyap resolved GERONIMO-1738.
> --------------------------------------
>
> Fix Version/s: 1.2
> Resolution: Fixed
>
> Let's mark this fixed. The patch has gone into the sandbox/
svkmerge/m2migration. The whole branch will be up for RTC review
anyway.
I disagree. Let's try to define when an issue is fixed. Let's face
what our end users face. If an end user consulted the issue today,
what would (s)he be left with? The answer is that (s)he will think
that the issue's fixed (I don't assume (s)he will eventually read the
description and draw his/her conclusion). This leads us to the
question whether it's really true. I believe, most if not all say
that
it is not. Unless I'm mistaken in my thinking, I'd ask for re-opening
the issue and close it only when the patches have really been applied
to the trunk. As a matter of fact, we don't know yet when the
svkmerge
branch will be merged so we don't really know what version the issue
is fixed in, do we?
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl
