Hi Pierre, If I understand correctly, you believe that post-closure assignment should represent the person who should get the "credit" for the ticket? What if multiple people contributed? What if there was a lot of back and forth between the reviewers and the patch contributor? What if the committer had to rewrite and fix the patch?
To be honest I don't really care who the post-closure ticket assignee is. The only solid use I can see is for gathering statistics about either contributor or committer and either way I don't think it's a useful metric anyway. One ticket can be 5 minutes work and another can be 5 months so ticket numbers aren't a useful representation of anything even if we ignore that multiple people are involved in almost every ticket. About this comment you made: > It should not be used by committers as a mechanism to claim/imply that they > were the sole contributor who scratchted the itch I've never heard of anyone stating that the post-closure assignee means anything other than the last person who was assigned to a ticket before it was closed. I think you're the only one attempting to add meaning to it. But hey, who cares, if it means something to you then I don't have an objection to that. Regarding the email spam, jira is a real pain for that. I wish we could turn off all notifications except for creation and comments, I want to follow discussions and ignore arbitrary ticket changes. Or at least turn those off for the jira mailing list, ticket watchers could still get all notifications directly. Regards Scott On 3 May 2017 at 01:13, Pierre Smits <[email protected]> wrote: > This has been discussed before. > > JIRA is a tool for contributors. Intended to provide insight on open issues > and to simply identify who was the lead contributor that brought a closed > issue to a succesful resolution. > > It should not be used by committers as a mechanism to claim/imply that they > were the sole contributor who scratchted the itch (in other words: improved > the code base of the project), when another contributor has done all the > legwork (register the issue, investigate it, provide the patch - order of > importance, etc.) and the committer did little more than the commit (which > is part of his obligation to help others and which comes with the > privilege). > > Best regards, > > Pierre Smits > > ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> > OFBiz based solutions & services > > OFBiz Extensions Marketplace > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Scott Gray <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I'm of two minds: > > 1. Who cares, it's no big deal. If a contributor wants to micro manage > > their contributions, so what? > > 2. It creates unnecessary noise in an already busy mailing list and also > > prevents us from knowing which committers are most responsive to > > contributions. > > > > I agree with Pierre that it's not difficult to know who committed a > > particular issue when that issue is in focus. > > > > This is one of those topics where we don't currently have a policy so we > > either need to make one or decide we don't care enough to bother. > > > > Regards > > Scott > > > > On 2/05/2017 7:44 PM, "Michael Brohl" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Pierre, > > > > > > you are still reassigning lots of old Jiras to yourself without > answering > > > our questions why you are doing so. > > > > > > Please stop it and give us your reasons why you are doing so. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > Am 02.05.17 um 09:36 schrieb Pierre Smits: > > > > > >> I apologise for any inconvenience caused. > > >> > > >> Using JIRA as tool to 'blame' a committer when something goes sour is > > not > > >> the best what comes to my mind. There are other services of the ASF > that > > >> help in that respect, such as ViewVC and FishEye. Those tools provide > > way > > >> better means to assess who committed what and when (even for > statistical > > >> purposes). > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> > > >> Pierre Smits > > >> > > >> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> > > >> OFBiz based solutions & services > > >> > > >> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace > > >> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ > > >> > > >> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Michael Brohl < > > [email protected] > > >> > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Scott, > > >>> > > >>> thanks for trying to clarify and giving your opinion on this. > > >>> > > >>> See my remarks inline. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Am 30.04.17 um 04:30 schrieb Scott Gray: > > >>> > > >>> I would prefer they were left assigned to the committer since the > onus > > >>>> tends to fall on them if there are any post closure issues. > > >>>> > > >>>> Exactly what I would prefer also. In most cases the commit and > > >>> backporting > > >>> is the last action taken and should be recorded as such. > > >>> > > >>> My guess if that Pierre wants to track what tickets he contributed to > > >>> > > >>>> beyond being the reporter. Could you confirm Pierre? > > >>>> > > >>>> Beyond what I've mentioned is there any other reason you have an > issue > > >>>> with > > >>>> it Michael? > > >>>> > > >>>> I think it is against the natural workflow as mentioned above. I > > cannot > > >>> remember that anyone else assigns tickets back to himself after they > > are > > >>> finished. > > >>> > > >>> It falsifies the statistics to reassign issues, especially if they > are > > >>> old. > > >>> > > >>> When it comes to contributions, the committer contribution would be > > >>> hidden. > > >>> > > >>> It produces unnecessary traffic in Jira and the notification mailing > > >>> lists > > >>> and adds nothing valuable. > > >>> > > >>> Just trying to figure out everyone's reasoning so we can work > towards a > > >>>> solution. > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks Scott, that's what I was trying to achieve also in my last > two > > >>> questions to Pierre. > > >>> > > >>> Regards > > >>>> Scott > > >>>> > > >>>> Regards, > > >>>> > > >>> Michael > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 29/04/2017 11:45 PM, "Michael Brohl" <[email protected]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hi Pierre, > > >>>> > > >>>> you are again reassigning lots of old and already closed Jiras to > > >>>> yourself. > > >>>> Can you please stop this and give us an explanation why you are > doing > > >>>> so? > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks, > > >>>> Michael > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Am 23.04.2017 um 15:56 schrieb Michael Brohl < > > [email protected] > > >>>> >: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hi Pierre, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> what's the reason to reassign old and already closed issues to > > yourself > > >>>>> again? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Regards, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Michael > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Am 23.04.17 um 13:06 schrieb Pierre Smits (JIRA): > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8232?page= > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] > > >>>>> Pierre Smits reassigned OFBIZ-8232: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> ----------------------------------- > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Assignee: Pierre Smits (was: Jacopo Cappellato) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Improve Dutch labels for commonext component > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> -------------------------------------------- > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Key: OFBIZ-8232 > > >>>>>>> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira > > >>>>>>> /browse/OFBIZ-8232 > > >>>>>>> Project: OFBiz > > >>>>>>> Issue Type: Improvement > > >>>>>>> Components: commonext > > >>>>>>> Affects Versions: Trunk > > >>>>>>> Reporter: Pierre Smits > > >>>>>>> Assignee: Pierre Smits > > >>>>>>> Priority: Minor > > >>>>>>> Labels: labels, refactoring > > >>>>>>> Fix For: 16.11.01 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Attachments: OFBIZ-8232-CommonExtUiLabels.xml.patch > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>> This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA > > >>>>>> (v6.3.15#6346) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >
