Hi Ryan, On 5/4/2011 at 7:14 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote: > As a rule, everything should go through JIRA on its way to svn -- this > is important so that we have somewhere to point for why we did things. > Even small things.
Your phrase "As a rule" provides wiggle room that we all use. "Even small things." Um, I don't think so. E.g. no-one is going to go through JIRA for a small typo fix. This judgment about what's big enough to warrant a JIRA issue is one each committer has to make. As a result, this argument (David's patch should have gone through JIRA because everything should go through JIRA) doesn't work for me. > With patches from contributors it is especially important they are > added to JIRA because they need to grant the license to ASF. Also > attachments are often stripped from mailing list archives, so down the > road its really hard to know what happened. These are both excellent points. Non-trivial non-committer patches should definitely go through JIRA for these reasons. > I understand the desire to keep maven support low key -- but we should > do that with a good README in dev-tools. I agree that the Maven build should be documented - I plan on putting something together soon, as suggested by David. This seems completely orthogonal to me, though, to the question of using JIRA issues for Maven build changes. > Even as officially non-official tools, it still gets into svn so > we need a trail of where it came from and hopefully a log of why > we thought it was important. I agree in principle, but again, I'll continue to use my own judgment about whether to use JIRA for small changes, especially to stuff under dev-tools/. Steve
