I hadn't really thought about this issue so here is my 2c.
The only potential issue I see is that I (and others) often see and
issue and reply to the e-mail generated from JIRA and do not
automatically go into JIRA to add the comments. So, those comments
are in the e-mail and are not in the JIRA. At best, JIRA will be a
possibly (perhaps most likely) partial record of the activity and e-
mail will be the full record. I'm fine with that.
I'm against mandating the use of JIRA or chastising people for not
following the process. For instance, for some people who travel and
do their e-mail on a plane they would have to wait for JIRA to be
available to post their comments which I think puts an undo burden on
the community member.
So, I think as a convention of mostly complete JIRA is fine, as a
project mandate I think I would agree with Ken that its too heavy.
On Sep 12, 2006, at 3:41 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
On Sep 12, 2006, at 7:56 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Geronimo follows a Review-Then-Commit (RTC) model. Patches for new
function are provided by developers for review and comment by their
peers. Feedback is conducted through JIRA comments.
- -1 on that last sentence. You don't hold discussions in JIRA..
FYI, all JIRA changes turn into emails to the dev list.
And based on that fact, I don't see any reason why JIRA can or
should not be used to facilitate vote-related comments... but when
it comes to full blow discussion I think that JIRA comments are not
the right place.
--jason
Matt Hogstrom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
