Re: [PORTAL] Adding some components to JIRA

[Michael Freedman]

Any chance we can keep it simple/straightforward -- the other Keys seem to do this ... like: Portlet Bridge Bridge Portlet PltBridge PBridge   -Mike- Manfred Geiler wrote: Done. BTW, I remember a discussion about the Jira key "JSR301". Reason for the discussion was that it's no ideal name, because there might be a time after jsr 301... Well, renaming a Jira key is not possible. What I could do is create a knew Jira project and bulk move all issues. But first we would have to find a proper key. MFPB for MyFaces portlet bridge? or JSFPB? Other suggestions? --Manfred On 10/18/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sure Manfred. If you would. I can then go and assign the existing Jira tickets in the appropriate categories. BTW, thanks sooo much for all your help in this... Scott Manfred Geiler wrote: So, there would be 4 new Jira "components" for the bridge: api impl documentation testing right? should I add them right now? --Manfred On 10/18/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hey guys, assuming there are not objections from incubator, I'm doing what I can to try to get the bridge project ready so we can hit the ground running. I was wondering what you guys thought about adding a couple of components to the jsr-301 jira project. First off, I would like to add impl and api components to this project. As an R.I., the api for this project will be largely dictated by the spec. Therefore bugs filed against the API should be handled with more scrutiny then changes to impl need to be. Secondly, I would like to see a separate component for documentation as I will expect there will be a lot added here. Third, it MIGHT be nice to add a "testing" component. I know that testing tasks could be included in the api and impl components, but part of the requirements for the testing suite for this project should be able ensuring compliance with the TCK. As an R.I., I know I personally would want to see these tests be as accurate as possible to ensure that the R.I. correctly implements the JSR-301 specification. What do you guys think? Regards, Scott