What is going to be "not-obvious conversations"? I see 2 variants: 1. someone found a very interesting moment and wants to share with his knowledge on it 2. someone is stuck with the issue and tries to get help.
Aleksey. On 2/12/07, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree that we need to bring out of the JIRA all the long or not-obvious conversations. And then add a link to this conversation to original JIRA issue. SY, Alexey 2007/2/11, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > So over the last few days, I've been working off and on trying to > debug some classloader stuff using eclipse. it's been a hoot, since > I don't know eclipse very well. > > When working w/ DRLVM as the runtime JRE for running and debugging > unit tests, I ran into a few problems with what appeared to be > related to JDPA et al. Gregory pointed me to http:// > issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3047, a JIRA on what appeared > to be related issues. > > Now, reading through, I saw at least one thing (having to put the > jdwp shared lib and the transport share lib) that I spent a bit of > time figuring out myself. Reading down the thread, there seemed to be > other interesting things in there. > > Now, I'm an advocate of having tech conversations out on the mailing > list, rather than in JIRA, because I believe it's better for a whole > bunch of reasons. I also understand how it's appropriate for some > comments to remain on JIRA if they tend to be narrow and specific. > > Should we try to suggest/mandate a practice that when a JIRA comment > thread gets "long", that we make an effort to bring it out? At least > consciously evaluate if there is going to be broader interest (in > this case) or broader experience that could help? > > I think we're missing some good opportunities to leverage the > collective abilities of the community as well as expose information > more broadly if we don't examine and address this. > > geir >
