Jason van Zyl wrote: > That's not a problem, and we can try to get everything useful in a > single line for things like Mylar.
I didn't know it needed a single line? That might make it harder to read, but we can look into it. > If you actually look at the way Mylar works it pulls everything in from > JIRA using URLs. It's a shame they don't recognise numbers/ids and link them up through some configuration. > I'm not sure I see that as important provided you have navigation back > to the issue. Whether that be typing in the key or using the URL. If > we're going to populate contributors elements it would probably make > more sense to take them from the source in JIRA and not from second hand > information. You probably want the users full information for a > contributor element and JIRA has more information. I don't consider JIRA the authoratative source here. You often don't use a patch, or use one and not the other, or something altogether different. Sure, we might use JIRA to get more details (which is really only the email address), but I think we need to be recording the authors in SVN. > MNG-2010 implemented the maven mind reader to pre-write all user > documentation requests > > The url can be optional. I use it all the time and I know it would be > useful in Mylar. This is fine with me (I wouldn't necessarily use the JIRA summary which is often crap, but would want to type my own comment). I still think the submitter of patches is important and could be a second line. I might ping legal-discuss to check if we actually have a requirement to capture this in SVN. Thanks :) - Brett --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
