Simon N, You are pointing out some good facts about which i can't express a realistic opinion given my limited experience in working on tuscany... I'll be following this thread with interest for opinions from the other tuscany people. The only observation I can make is that in this case we'll need a category for every single binding and implementation for instance. Also, a problem that a user is facing in an application (which is not one of our samples) that uses several modules will be hard to include in one single category.
One more topic to discuss in this area would be how can the existing issues opened by users be cleaned up? There are some really old ones... Some alternatives are to just close them or to ask the users if the issue is still affecting them but both solutions have disadvantages more or less. Florian On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Simon Nash <[email protected]> wrote: > Florian MOGA wrote: > >> Since we're cleaning up things I took a look again at the JIRA Categories. >> I propose simply having: >> >> Java SCA >> Java SDO >> Java DAS >> C++ SCA >> C++ SDO >> C++ DAS >> OASIS >> Tools (including Hudson, Maven, SVN issues) >> Website/Documentation >> User Questions >> Ideas >> >> instead of having ~30 categories which nobody uses... It seems simpler and >> gives us the functionality we need out of it. >> >> I use the current longer list of categories and I think it's useful > for users to be able to look for problems with a particular binding > (for example). > > Maybe the best place to have this discussion is on the user list. > I think the categorization is more for the benefit of users doing > searches than it is for developers. > > > Regarding the User Questions section we can let users report issues in >> there and only after an investigation from our side we can "promote" them to >> the appropriate category. Seems fair enough... >> >> I think it's better for questions to be discussed on the mailing list > and not raised as JIRAs until there is consensus that it's an issue > that needs tracking as a JIRA. > > Simon > > SDO and DAS sections seem to have some a considerable number of issues >> opened (~20%). How can we clean those up? >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Luciano Resende >> <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Simon Laws >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > Current status >> > 1500 closed >> > 1560 resolved >> > 500 Open (365 SCA) >> > >> > Each person, for those that you've opened >> > Close resolved ones >> > Close open JIRA that no longer apply >> > Can do this without sending email although the check box seems to >> > have been removed >> > >> >> I'm not seeing the option to "transition jiras" without sending >> e-mails, do I need to be admin to do that ? otherwise I don't think we >> want 200 more e-mails just to move from fixed to close :) >> >> > For JIRA that fall out of this process >> > Take it to the list >> > Mail back to the user? >> > We can try and group correctly - Feature request vs Bug >> > Use "will not fix" if we really think we're not going to do >> anything >> > >> > Categories >> > general dissatisfaction with JIRA categories we have as they are >> > not really used >> > Try to convert to a shorter list (should try and match >> > distribution structure?) >> > base runtime >> > binding.ws <http://binding.ws> >> >> > binding.jms >> > etc for the main extensions >> > Look at this list when we've talked about release artifacts >> > Encourage people to use unknown rather than guessing >> > SCA Java is default so would need SCA Native, SDO Java etc >> > >> >> There are several uncategorized ones, should we handle those as well ? >> >> -- >> Luciano Resende >> http://people.apache.org/~lresende >> http://twitter.com/lresende1975 >> http://lresende.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> >
