Would it be possible to use a JIRA custom field (that's required) called "Implementation" or something similarly named with choices of C++ and Java? With more than just Java and C++ for components I'm afraid those two choices might be overlooked when a ticket is created.
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Andy Christianson < achristian...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > Making it required sounds like an improvement, at the very least. > > -Andy I.C. > ________________________________________ > From: Kevin Doran <kdoran.apa...@gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:22 AM > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > Subject: Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA > > Would it suffice to make the existing 'component' field _required_ at > ticket creation time, and having components consist of 'C++', 'Java', & > perhaps 'Both/All/*' as well? I imagine that is less effort than setting up > and maintaining a separate project and solves the problem, unless there are > advantages that a separate project would provide other than just issue > filtering by C++/Java. > > Kevin > > On 8/21/17, 11:18, "Andy Christianson" <achristian...@hortonworks.com> > wrote: > > Joe, > > We actually already have that. There is a 'C++' and 'Java' component. > It works for the most part, but there are cases where it becomes ambiguous, > particularly on docker-related tickets. > > I think there's certainly an argument that we need to just track > components more carefully. Having it be a separate JIRA would make it > harder to make a ticket ambiguous. Is it worth the effort/overhead of > setting up another JIRA? I'll leave that to the more > experienced/established Apache parties since I don't know what the overhead > cost is. > > Regards, > > Andy I.C. > ________________________________________ > From: Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:10 AM > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > Subject: Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA > > Can we recommend and setup a set of component names so that filtering > can be done reasonably? > > If we do that would it be sufficient? > > Alternatively we can ask ASF infra to setup another JIRA project such > as 'minificpp' but I'd like to avoid that until we're really sure we > want to bug em. > > Thanks > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Andy Christianson > <achristian...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > > Agree 100%. I have been bitten by this a few times. Is this > something Aldrin can do/have done? > > > > -Andy I.C. > > ________________________________________ > > From: Jeff Zemerick <jzemer...@apache.org> > > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:56 PM > > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > > Subject: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA > > > > The MINIFI project in JIRA is currently a combination of issues for > both > > the C++ and Java implementations. Some issues for the C++ project do > have > > the C++ component set but some don't and it can sometimes be hard to > easily > > differentiate the issues by their titles. (There isn't a "Java" > component > > so a useful filter is hard to make.) Has there been any > consideration given > > to having separate JIRA projects for the C++/Java MiNiFi > implementations? > > > > Thanks, > > Jeff > > > > > > > > > > > > >
