So any comments on this latest version of the proposal? I'd like to get started on breaking out tomahawk.
Sean On 2/17/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > MyFaces (sub-)projects on the site: > > API > > Impl > > Commons > > Tomahawk > > Sandbox > > (Tobago) > > agreed. > > > We will release the following assemblies with different release numbers: > > Core (= API + Impl) > > Commons > > technically this is not an assembly. its released as a maven pom and > jar and its in ibiblio but we don't release as its own tarball. i > think we should stick with that policy. > > > Tomahawk (with or without Sandbox?) > > right now its without sandbox and i agree with how it is now. > > > (Tobago) > > > > I propose the following Jira-Projects: > > MYFACES > > MYFACES-COMMONS > > MYFACES-TOMAHAWK > > MYFACES-TOBAGO > > -1 to MYFACES in front of everything. When refererencing bugs in the > svn comments, emails, etc. its easier to say TOBAGO-101, etc. > > Jira allows us to group these all under one category. So I propose we > keep the existing category of MyFaces. JIRA also has two naming > concepts for the project. The project name and the project key. So > here is my proposal in the format: subproject --> project name - KEY > > core --> MyFaces: Core - MYFACES > commons --> MyFaces: Commons - MF-COMMONS > tomahawk --> MyFaces: Tomahawk - TOMAHAWK > tobago --> MyFaces: Tobago - TOBAGO > > The key is where the issue numbers are derived from. > > > All four would have the common Jira category "MyFaces". So they will > > still be tied together. > > > > There were some discussions regarding Commons in Jira. IMHO this is > > the only solution, that is logical and does not lead to additional > > confusion. Commons will have it's own release cycles - there is no > > other way to solve this without having unwanted peculiarities. Some > > alternatives, that where discussed recently: > > * A custom field "Affected Commons Version": What about the "Fix > > Version"? Where do I document it. Another custom field "Commons Fix > > Version"? No, no, please. > > * Request a JIRA enhancement? Not possible within a realistic time frame > > IMHO. > > > > So, what is the real drawback? The only one I can think of (and was > > noted in former discussions) is, that people will report Commons bugs > > in MYFACES. Well, moving issues between Jira projects is no big deal > > as already was said. And: The very same applies to Tomahawk issues. > > Many many Tomahawk bugs will be reported in MYFACES, because there > > will always be cases where it is not so clear which sub-projects is > > causing the actual problem. > > So, it's always the developer's job to finally put the issue into the > > right category, project, component, or whatever. > > I can see Manfred's point about commons and I reluctantly agree. We > will probably come to regret not having a separate JIRA instance for > this so lets just accept it now instead of trying a bunch of hacks > that will probably not suffice. > > So I am +1 but with the changes I suggested above. I will also hold > off on doing anything JIRA related this weekend. This is too big of a > change and we need everyone's input. Lets try for early next week > instead. > > > Manfred > > Sean >
