I think the problems comes in with your definition as well as peoples
interpretation of that. I don't agree with your statement of "where the "how"
is different from the "what"".
This could apply to a lot of things. I could easily file a jira that says
remove synchronization on routine x,
I don't agree that every change needs a JIRA, myself. Really, we
didn't choose to have this system split across JIRA and Github PRs.
It's necessitated by how the ASF works (and with some good reasons).
But while we have this dual system, I figure, let's try to make some
sense of it.
I think it
Popping this back up to the dev list again. I see a bunch of checkins with
minor or hotfix.
It seems to me we shouldn't be doing this, but I would like to hear thoughts
from others. I see no reason we can't have a jira for each of those issues, it
only takes a few seconds to file one and it
+1, and i know i've been guilty of this in the past. :)
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Joseph Bradley jos...@databricks.com
wrote:
+1
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Patrick Wendell pwend...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hey All,
Just a request here - it would be great if people could create
+1
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Patrick Wendell pwend...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey All,
Just a request here - it would be great if people could create JIRA's
for any and all merged pull requests. The reason is that when patches
get reverted due to build breaks or other issues, it is very
Hey All,
Just a request here - it would be great if people could create JIRA's
for any and all merged pull requests. The reason is that when patches
get reverted due to build breaks or other issues, it is very difficult
to keep track of what is going on if there is no JIRA. Here is a list
of 5
