Looking at the Solr and Hadoop JIRA's, I'm wary of "JIRA pollution". Also, patches that don't get committed are left behind by code changes and are just a pain in the neck.
Github has URLs for specific directories and files. I'm fine with posting pointers to them. Also, I have my own tech blog (ultrawhizbang.blogspot.com) specifically so that I can post pictures for longer explanations. On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- Lance Norskog [email protected]
