labels seems reasonable, assuming that Codehaus deploys them. Given the positive response to this idea, I plan to send the email tomorrow some time and start on MNG.
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sunday, June 19, 2011 7:13:11 PM Dennis Lundberg wrote: >> On 2011-06-19 18:46, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: >> > Is there any smart way to tag a bug as processed in a triaging process >> > so we can focus on the remaining bugs? >> > >> > I've always wondered if there's any option to tag an issue or create >> > shared custom lists...? >> >> We should be able to use "Labels" for this: >> http://confluence.atlassian.com/display/JIRA043/Labelling+an+Issue >> >> I haven't used them myself yet, but they seem to fit the bill. > > For CXF, we have a special "NeedMoreInfo" version that we use for this. We > set the "FixFor" version to that when we've added a comment that requires more > information from the user. We can easily get a list of all the issues that > require more information, when we asked for it, etc..... > > Probably an abuse of the version field though. :-) > > Dan > > >> >> > K >> > >> > Den 19. juni 2011 kl. 18:42 skrev John Casey <[email protected]>: >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> Great idea! >> >> >> >> On 6/18/11 10:22 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: >> >>> If no one objects to this idea, I'd like to add a component, which >> >>> is >> >>> an email like the following to the user list. >> >>> >> >>> --snip-- >> >>> >> >>> Dear Maven Users, >> >>> >> >>> Over the years, the JIRA for core Maven >> >>> (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG) has accumulated many >> >>> unresolved >> >>> issues. All this clutter makes it difficult to tell where the real >> >>> problems are. Further, many of these issues do not contain >> >>> self-contained test cases. Practically speaking, it is very >> >>> difficult >> >>> to diagnose and resolve a problem without a test case 'on the >> >>> bench.' >> >>> We developers would like to turn over a bit of a new leaf. We're >> >>> going >> >>> to ask you to supply a test case to go with your bug reports. In >> >>> return, we're going to try very hard to attend to them. You can tar >> >>> it >> >>> up and attach it to the jira, or just push it to github and add a >> >>> link. >> >>> >> >>> To clean up the current mess, we plan to start going through the >> >>> backlog. We'll add comments asking for test cases or other followup. >> >>> If we don't hear back in two weeks, we're going to close. >> >>> >> >>> We're sorry for any frustration felt by the originators of >> >>> long-neglected reports, but we believe that this process will help >> >>> us >> >>> be more responsive in the future. >> >>> >> >>> --snip-- >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Stephen Connolly >> >>> >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> they can always reopen if they want after the issue has been >> >>>> closed if the 2nd weeks was too short >> >>>> >> >>>> - Stephen >> >>>> >> >>>> --- >> >>>> Sent from my Android phone, so random spelling mistakes, random >> >>>> nonsense words and other nonsense are a direct result of using >> >>>> swype to type on the screen >> >>>> On 19 Jun 2011 00:20, "Stephen >> >>>> Connolly"<[email protected]> >> >>>> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> +50 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I say lets give each issue a ping, wait 2 weeks and close if no >> >>>>> response >> >>>>> >> >>>>> - Stephen >> >>>>> >> >>>>> --- >> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone, so random spelling mistakes, random >> >>>>> nonsense words and other nonsense are a direct result of using >> >>>>> swype to type on the screen >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On 18 Jun 2011 23:30, "Benson Margulies"<[email protected]> > wrote: >> >>>>>> I just looked at the 'blocker' issues. We have a variety of >> >>>>>> very old >> >>>>>> JIRAs here. None of the ones I looked at have a self-contained >> >>>>>> test >> >>>>>> case that would can be downloaded, run, and converted to an >> >>>>>> integration test, etc. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> What's the policy? My temptation would be to comment on them >> >>>>>> asking if the OP is still interested (in some cases, 5 years >> >>>>>> later), and, if so, can they come up with a repeatable test >> >>>>>> case, and if not close as not a real bug. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I don't mind in some cases doing work to build a test case, >> >>>>>> but to go to all this trouble for a bug that was opened about >> >>>>>> maven 2.0.x, where it may not be that easy to reconstruct the >> >>>>>> critical components of the problem, seems a dubious use of >> >>>>>> time. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>>>> ------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> >>>>>> [email protected] >> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>> >> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> - >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> >> >> -- >> >> John Casey >> >> Developer, PMC Member - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org) >> >> Blog: http://www.johnofalltrades.name/ >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > -- > Daniel Kulp > [email protected] > http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
