Florian MOGA wrote:
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.
Thanks for starting this discussion thread. I think it's a very
important topic because we do have problems with the JIRAs and we do
need to make the JIRA process more effective.
My suggestion was that we need to discuss this on the user list rather
than the dev list. Would you like to move the discussion over there?
This would allow us to get user input on what set of components would
be useful to users when they search for JIRAs.
I think there's a balance that needs to be struck between treating
every binding and implementation type individually and putting everything
together into a single component for SCA Java. In many cases the problem
clearly affects a single binding (e.g., Web Services or JMS) and I think
it could be useful to users if we have separate components for these.
For other bindings that are less important from a user perspective we
could have a category for SCA Java Bindings or we could use the newly
added category SCA Java Runtime. In cases where a problem doesn't fit
into any specific area (as in the example of a user application that
gets an error), the right category would be SCA Java Runtime.
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.
We shouldn't close issues just because they are old. I recently fixed
a problem that was reported (by me!) about 2 years ago. Also we shouldn't
close a JIRA just because the original user isn't still having the problem.
They might have moved away from Tuscany because they couldn't make it
work, or they might have found a workaround to avoid hitting the problem.
If the problem still exists, it could affect other users and I think we in
the Tuscany community should want to keep tracking it for that reason.
Also, when new people want to get involved, fixing a few "easy" JIRAs can
be a good entry point into becoming a contributor to the Tuscany codebase.
If we decide that a problem is valid but we won't fix it for whatever reason,
there's a way to record that in JIRA by resolving it as "Won't fix".
We should be willing to use this when appropriate. Perhaps some of the
SDO and DAS JIRA backlog could be cleared up in this way.
Simon
Florian
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Simon Nash <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Simon Laws
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[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> <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/
