I think JIRA offers a "threaded or grouped" view of posts, grouped per issue or topic. Well, JIRA
is meant for issues, not topics, though. For the same reason, I do use Mantis for topical
discussions (in-house, where less than 20 people yell away at a topical discussion, not 200).
Oftentimes, topical discussions can be quite lengthy. May be too verbose or epic for JIRA to
handle. Nabble does a great job of grouping posts per topic. And Nabble is also searchable.
For delicate and specific framework issues, JIRA could be used. Doesn't seem likely we will ever
get delicate and general framework issues. General issues are rarely... hmm... specific enough to
matter (or be delicate)?
As for pre-commit discussions that lead up to committing a particular solution to a particular
JIRA issue, those discussions should be on the JIRA issue itself. Even for a post that seems OT
but is somehow affected by or will affect the JIRA issue in question, that post should still be
attached to the JIRA issue in question.
Jonathon
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
David,
I totally agree in general. It was because I thought that maybe for delicate
framework issues it would have been good to be able to
quickly find all about one of them if a problem arises
Jacques
De : "David E Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Oct 13, 2007, at 3:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Hi Adam,
De : "Adam Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Some of the patches I'll want to discuss before committing. Should
those be done on the mailing list, or thru jira? Since I'll be
having
commit access now, which is the preferred way for discussing
questionable changes?
I think Jira would be preferable as it's easier to find afterwards
Jacques
Um... Jira is TERRIBLE for discussions, isn't it? Maybe I have
strange preferences...
What Adam described seems to me to be just about the definition of
what the dev mailing list is meant for: discussion of development of
OFBiz.
Jira is for issue management, not for discussion.
[snip]
-David
