Ok either averaging 4 hours of sleep this week is getting to me or
Alan started speaking another language deceptively like English but
where you agree with people by disagreeing with them. My wife speaks
this language fluently.
On Nov 17, 2005, at 2:18 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
+1 Using JIRA for tracking progress of the ORB would be great.
We already have a CORBA component, so I suggest you create an "Add
an ORB implementation" issue that can be the parent of all the tasks.
On Nov 17, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Lars Kühne wrote:
Done, GERONIMO-1198
On Nov 17, 2005, at 5:24 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Lars,
I think that we should make focused jira issues rather than a
single umbrella issue that tracks all work on the CORBA server.
[blah blah blah] File sub-tasks for the patches that you are
submitting.
On Nov 17, 2005, at 10:18 PM, Lars Kühne wrote:
Alan,
as Dain suggested this issue is meant to serve as a parent issue
for individual subtasks (or rather "incorporates" links?).
On Nov 18, 2005, at 12:47 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
[snip] I do not believe that there is a need to capture the
hierarchy of the architecture in Jira. A flat list of Jira issues
with sub-tasks that track individual patches for that issue should
be fine..
The part that really gets me rolling on the ground... hierarchies are
ok just as long as you refer to them as being "flat" lists with sub-
lists. That's like saying, "We're not so much walking as we more
sort of moving our shoes from one place to another while they happen
to be on our feet." I guess the zen is in the spaces between the words.
Considering a Jira Task Issue contains all the same data as a Jira
Issue Sub-Task, I bet you $50 they are the same thing but with a
couple GUI screens cut out and defaults filled in for convenience.
Just couldn't bite my tongue on this one ... (assuming that
expression even works for text).
OK, I definitely need sleep.
-David
On Nov 18, 2005, at 12:47 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Lars Kühne wrote, On 11/17/2005 10:18 PM:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Nov 17, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Lars Kühne wrote:
On 11/17/05, *Dain Sundstrom* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
We already have a CORBA component, so I suggest you create
an "Add an
ORB implementation" issue that can be the parent of all the
tasks.
Done, GERONIMO-1198
I think that we should make focused jira issues rather than a
single umbrella issue that tracks all work on the CORBA server.
Ideally, people would put their stake in the ground by writing
about the architectural bit that they are going to implement in
the wiki. Then follow up with a a single Jira issue that
basically marks the bit that you are going to implement. File
sub-tasks for the patches that you are submitting.
WDYT?
Alan,
as Dain suggested this issue is meant to serve as a parent issue
for individual subtasks (or rather "incorporates" links?). This,
together with using the CORBA component, is meant to serve as a
simple method for filtering for individual work items that are
open. Inidividual sub-issues would be stuff like "implement
ORB.resolve_initial_reference", "allow JMX monitoring of property
xyz", "add unit tests for ValueType mashalling" or "document
configuration properties".
The problem is that keeping track of the patches, and they will be
more than one for any issue, becomes a problem because they are
tossed in one bucket of attachments. I do not believe that there
is a need to capture the hierarchy of the architecture in Jira. A
flat list of Jira issues with sub-tasks that track individual
patches for that issue should be fine..
I have never used a Wiki as a collaboration tool, so maybe I don't
know what I'm missing. Right now I wouldn't know what to write
about the above sub-issues, as most of it isn't really
"architectural" - it's described in the CORBA spec and somebody
just has to do it.
That's ok. There's no point in excessive bureucracy, I would just
file a Jira issue in this case. However, the reason that I wanted
to use the wiki was to use that as an informal organization
mechanism. I would hate for you and others to start working on the
same thing at the same time.
For the trickier parts of an ORB a Wiki would certainly be a good
idea to achieve some high level implementation idea before actual
coding starts. However, I typically write an implementation
overview (responsibility of each package and how they work
together) in javadoc overview and package docs.
Do you use javadoc in geronimo land or do you write everything in
the Wiki? What about end user docs, would they belong in src/
xdocs, so they are easy to distribute with releases, or would that
go into the Wiki, so they are easier to edit for non-committers?
We haven't discussed that at any length, iirc. I personally would
prefer everything to go into the wiki.
Regards,
Alan
