Hi, Well, my initial reaction was also to go for Option 2, because the issue tracker is not the right place to give credit, it's temporary and that the code's commit history and PRs is the way to accept people's contributions and give credit.
However, for the sake of trying to motivate people and have more contributors/committers (and we need that more IMO than anything else), I`m voting for Option 1, with the mention that we can have cases when the author of an accepted PR does not have a jira account so then the committer closing the issue is forced to assign himself and probably add a comment saying that the applied the PR authored by X. Thanks, Eduard On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:44 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 26 Nov 2014 at 14:21:48, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) ([email protected] > (mailto:[email protected])) wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > We have discussed this subject multiple times, but we don't have an > > official vote and conclusion on the topic. > > > > Problem: In JIRA who is the Assignee of an issue fixed by a Pull Request? > > 1: Contributor > > - he provided the solution > > - giving the attributions, the contributor might feel encouraged to > > contribute more > > - we could do some JIRA statistics on external contributions, but this > use > > case can be covered by GitHub statistics > > > > 2: Committer > > - he does the merging on his account and he becomes responsible for the > > committed code. > > - in case there are problems, the committer needs to find solution, since > > we can't rely on contributors availability > > - in doing the PR review, the committer spends a lot of time analyzing > and > > testing the provided solution > > > > We are talking here about complete solutions provided by the PR, since in > > case of partial solutions, the committer can assign himself on the issue > > (depends on the quantity of modification he does). > > > > Let me know what you think, > > It’s not easy to decide. Naturally I’m more tempted by solution 2 > (committer) because it’s usually overall more work from the committer part > (review, fix problems and maintain over the long run) and he’s taking the > responsibility for it (in case it leads to problems he’s one who’s going to > have to fix it and take the heat - he can try pushing it back to the > contributor but it may or may not work ;)). Also handling a PR is some work > for committers (we have a lot of open issues with PRs that prove this!) and > it’s good that the committer is “rewarded" by being the assignee in jira > too. > > Note that the contributor is also already rewarded in the commit history > on github and on our Hall of Fame on xwiki.org. > > Now I’m not going to oppose 1 if everyone believes it’s better. If we do 1 > we’ll just need to put clearly in the Committership page on xwiki.org the > part about the responsibility when applying PRs. > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > Caty > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
