Cool thanks for the heads up! You live and learn :) Its funny how
totally different all the various Apache projects are and how they get
things done.

My bad for not reading the contributing section of the wiki yet :)

2008/7/23 Patrick Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> James Strachan wrote:
>> Just an idle observation as I'd never seen this workflow before on
>> JIRA so thought I'd ask :)
> I'm new to JIRA as well...
>> I've been watching some of the recent JIRA activity with interest.
>> I've seen a few JIRAs arrive, someone submits a test case who's not a
>> committer, then the issue gets assigned to the person who submitted
>> the patch. In some cases; when there may be many patches to assign
>> over time, I can understand it (e.g. ZOOKEEPER-78 could take a zillion
>> iterations before the feature is complete) - but in general if one
>> JIRA gets one patch from a non-committer, should the JIRA be left
>> unassigned - or assigned to a committer to review and apply or
>> reject-with-reason the patch?
> I believe the workflow is that the jira is assigned to the person resolving
> the issue (ie submiting the patch). You/Hiram have been added as
> "contributors" to jira, this means that jiras can be assigned to you. We
> typically add ppl to the contributor list as soon as they submit a patch.
> After that point you do the back/forth in the comments trying to get
> everyone to agree to a resolution. If this is a patch you then change the
> status to "patch available" and ask for review/voting, after which if you
> get a "+1" it's then up to a committer to commit to svn.
> full details here:
>> i.e. lets say I raise a JIRA and attach a patch; once we're at that
>> stage I can't actually do anything else, not being a committer - other
>> than add another version of the patch :) So am not sure if its worth
>> assigning the issue to me. I guess the person who raised the issue &
>> submitted the patch can always mark it as unassigned :)
> It's assigned to the person who resolved the issue. If accepted it's up the
> the committers to get it into svn, but you (the resolver) are still
> responsible. This information is also important for reporting purposes.
>> No biggie I just thought I'd ask if this was an intentional way you
>> guys had worked together in the past?
> This is generally how Hadoop core/hbase do things.
> Patrick


Open Source Integration

Reply via email to