This is in interesting question. The implementations do share a lot, so it's actually quite likely that bugs will occur in the engine rather than in the binding itself. My initial impression is that it will be difficult to categorize correctly against the proper software component on first blush, e.g. say Messenger.get() is not returning a message or blowing up under some circumstance. This could be due to an interop issue with another implementation, a bug in the C engine, or a bug in the binding itself, and it might not be obvious which until we do some investigation/debugging.
It strikes me that we really have two independent pieces of information to capture here, (1) the bindings in which the bug manifests, and (2) the software component that is ultimately determined to be at fault. The potential drawback of using components to represent both of these is that for every engine bug we're likely to get a duplicate report from every binding. I'm just thinking out loud here, and I'm not a JIRA expert, so I don't know exactly what's possible, but it might be worth considering adding a custom field for the binding(s) under which the issue occurs and reserving component for whatever is actually at fault. This way it's possible we might get people to augment the first occurence of the bug with additional bindings and actually provide a valuable clue that it's a problem with the engine because it occurs in multiple bindings. --Rafael On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Darryl L. Pierce <dpie...@redhat.com>wrote: > Should we have separate components in Jira to represent each of the > language bindings? If someone were to report a bug against any of them, > it seems a little incorrect to report it against proton-c unless it were > specifically something under the language covers. > > I'd like to have the following components if everybody agrees: > * proton-ruby > * proton-perl > * proton-php > * proton-c++ > * proton-python > > -- > Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc. > Delivering value year after year. > Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. > http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ > >
