I'm fine with that. No problem in putting stuff in JIRA per se -- it's just making sure we preserve JIRA's role as a workflow tool. That is, as you say, if such issues were marked early as WontFix or something similar that would solve it; we wouldn't have issues floating around that appear to want review and committing when they don't.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think this is quite right. If he puts it up on Github, then we have > to go searching for it and it is not officially part of the project. JIRA is > a perfectly fine place to explore ideas with real patches, which, at the end > of the discussion may result in a "won't fix", but it shouldn't be decided up > front just because it is still being thought through. Naturally, a > discussion on dev@ might be warranted first if no code is involved, but by > putting it in JIRA we have captured: the idea, the code, and the > contributor's intent to donate it. Someone else or Lance may very well come > along and improve on it such that it does become commit worthy. Iterating on > ideas in JIRA should be encouraged and I think Lance let everyone know right > up front that they can choose to ignore this for now if they are so inclined > so as to not waste anyone's time.
