Chris Hostetter wrote on 8/8/12 3:39 PM: > : > That means we have 2 competing ticketing systems, our official Apache JIRA > : > system being the other. > : > > : > When we eventually distribute through other host-language-specific > systems like > : > CPAN, the issue will get worse. > : > > : > What's the preferred way of dealing with this kind of situation? > > Apache Lucy has a single bug tracker. There may be lots of other > downstream "places" where people file bugs, submit patches, or otherwise > gripe about Lucy, and it would certianly be a good idea for the Lucy > community to monitor those "places" and act as they see fit (and open jira > issues when they see fit), but the ASF Jira server is the system of record > for bugs/features.
I agree. I guess what I was hoping to do was start a conversation about this community's expectations around the details of "as they see fit" in case anyone had a different idea of "fit" than my own. E.g., yesterday someone opened a bug report on CPAN's RT system. There was no actual patch, but a suggested fix in the narrative. I applied a fix. I commented on the RT ticket to that effect. Should I also have opened a JIRA ticket? I'm lazy. I'd prefer not to. I referenced the RT ticket in my svn commit message, because as I saw it, that constituted an adequate audit trail considering there was little question of IP conflict. Was that adequate? I dunno. Hence, this thread. Marvin's comments on this thread seem to indicate that my actions were in line with his expectations, and that what I am still missing is a note on the RT ticket pointing the reporter at our CONTRIBUTING doc. That makes sense, and I'll do that. Thanks to you both. -- Peter Karman . http://peknet.com/ . pe...@peknet.com
