Yes, you’re correct.
We currently have only one screen used for create, edit, and view in each project. To change which fields show in any one of those views, we need another screen. Only Jira administrators can make a screen and update the screen scheme to use it, and, for our Jira, only Infra are Jira administrators. On Feb 7, 2020, 9:56 AM -0600, David Smiley <david.w.smi...@gmail.com>, wrote: > Cassandra: > I believe you have more JIRA administrative experience than I. I notice Solr > has one "screen" used for create, edit, and view. "SOLR-JIRA-PROJECT" is the > name of the screen. It appears I need to request that a JIRA administrator > create a new screen for us that is associated only with the "create issue" > operation of the "screen scheme". Do you agree? Likewise for the Lucene > project. I'll go file an Infra ticket. > > ~ David Smiley > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 9:04 AM Eric Pugh <ep...@opensourceconnections.com> > > wrote: > > > +1 as well. I have seen new contributors struggle with what setting that > > > means... It can also set an expectation someone will just magically fix > > > it! > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:21 AM Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > +1 to option A. > > > > > > > > > > We can also remove the “fix version” whenever we notice it entered > > > > > prematurely. There’ll still be some that sneak through, but between > > > > > removing it from the create screen and fixing it when we notice, > > > > > there’ll be many fewer next time. Which is good enough. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, using “blocker” is iffy the more I think about it, I don’t have > > > > > much of an opinion either way. It’s either “learn to ignore blockers > > > > > that are for a future version” or “look at everything that’s marked > > > > > for the version you’re releasing and is still open”. If we tighten up > > > > > the “fix version”, the second requires less effort…. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2020, at 7:57 AM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowsk...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 on Option A. > > > > > > > > > > > > [-0] on Option B. Even though it might not be everyday, I don't > > > > > > think > > > > > > we should put roadblocks in front of users who want to clean up > > > > > > after > > > > > > themselves. We do occasionally see users create jira issues and > > > > > > then > > > > > > close them themselves when they realize user error or something else > > > > > > was at play. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:03 AM David Smiley > > > > > > <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I think too often a "Fix Version" is set prematurely, especially > > > > > >> by contributors who don't know better and seem to choose arbitrary > > > > > >> values, thus making this JIRA field less meaningful. Ideally it > > > > > >> is set on resolution. We've also used it to assign issues to > > > > > >> releases in advance to avoid forgetting about them.[1] The > > > > > >> permissions on this field in JIRA appears to be a bit unique[2]; > > > > > >> it's tied to the ability to "Resolve" issues. Reporters (who > > > > > >> could be anybody) can resolve issues (e.g. to close) can thus set > > > > > >> the fix version. I can see a couple options to improve the > > > > > >> situation *and we could do both*. I propose we do both in fact. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Option A: Remove "Fix Version" from the "create issue" screen. > > > > > >> If usually this shouldn't be set on issue creation, then let's > > > > > >> remove the temptation to set it here. Many contributors, I think, > > > > > >> only ever see the create-issue screen and won't edit the issue, > > > > > >> which we'll leave open for the ability to set this field. > > > > > >> Implementing this appears easy as we've got our own > > > > > >> project-specific screen to manipulate. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Option B: Revoke the "Resolve" permission for the Reporter. > > > > > >> It seems unusual for simple contributors to "Resolve" the issue. > > > > > >> They might note it's a duplicate after-the-fact but it seems quite > > > > > >> rare to me; it's usually us committers (who retain the right to > > > > > >> Resolve any issue) who point out a duplicate or perhaps decide the > > > > > >> issue is a "Won't-Fix" or whatever. Implementing this proposal > > > > > >> would require moving to a project-specific permission scheme > > > > > >> instead of using the default one that's in use by 349 projects. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> [1]: We might stop the practice of using fix-version as a TODO for > > > > > >> unresolved issues, and thus fix-version would simply only ever get > > > > > >> set for resolved issues and thus be editable on a resolution > > > > > >> screen. But what other approach? Maybe Priority of Blocker, > > > > > >> though it wouldn't differentiate the next-major release from the > > > > > >> next-minor one. Shrug; the status quo is fine I guess. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> [2]: > > > > > >> https://confluence.atlassian.com/adminjiraserver083/managing-project-permissions-976767811.html > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ~ David Smiley > > > > > >> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > > > > > >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > > >
