> I think you cannot make the tool responsible for how it is used in this > particular case. of course the tool is responsible! Jira is not a tool to review code!
"Jira: Issue & Project Tracking Software" so nothing to do with code ;) Just imagine how it would be possible with another tool. For example with github each time James pushes new changes I will able to check only this new changes, we will be able to make discussion (question/answer/comment) on different points, I mean different threads in same PullRequest > The issue was opened for review only after the feature branch from > Jacques was opened, before the exchange was meant to be just between > Jacques and James. don't understand this statement. You mean sometimes jira discussion is understandable only by two people (so noone is able to enter discussion afterward) and we should consider this a normal process? What do you mean with `feature branch`? feature branch is related to git only, no? here we are talking about jira and github and how these tools are well suited for reviewing code. > > The contributors could have created a feature branch and work on it > together but chose to exchange patch files. > > Jira is not to be blamed here.
signature.asc
Description: signature
