I think the use of the status is more appropiate you have a status for has patch for instance. using the statuses to move a Jira along is more appropiate
[EMAIL PROTECTED] sent the following on 12/20/2007 3:10 PM: > Hi Jacques, > > for the INCORPORATING ISSUE I think to issue that contains link to single > issue. > So for example the issue OFBIZ-1463 is the father (INCORPORATING ISSUE) of 8 > issues and everyone are improvements on framework component. > If we set the father issue also to the framework component we will have 9 > issues that are based to this component instead there are in reality 8. > That's my idea but if no one like it I can rollback everything. > > Marco > --- > Hi All, > > I think we need to clarify this. I recently created the INCORPORATING ISSUE > component at Marco's demand. > > It firstly began around a *very specific* issue I created for the purpose of > grouping together all securities issues past and future (in any states, open, > closed, etc.) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1525. > > At this time I was unable to specify all components as I expected some future > security issues to appear and wanted to be able to collect them there. So I > let void the component attribute > Marco seems to use the component attribute to deal with Jira issues. So he > asked me to create a specific component to avoid letting this incorporating > issue void of component attribute. Hence I created the INCORPORATING ISSUE. > > My goal was nothing more than that. But it seems that Marco has found anther > way to use it and I think it's no a good idea. I see that already Jacopo is > undoing some component changes made by Marco and I totally agree with that. > Maybe Marco can explain his need and we will see if another way is possible... > > Thanks > > Jacques > > > From: "BJ Freeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So the INCORPORATED ISSUE is taged on all the sub or related tasks? > on related task how do you determine which one should be INCORPORATED ISSUE. > Like to help were I can on the ones I submit > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent the following on 12/20/2007 11:19 AM: > Yes, Adrian I move the discussion on dev mailing list. > I'm sorry but was not my intention to made confusion on JIRA issues but > instead remove confusion from JIRA issues. > So I tried to start reorganization of JIRA issues on the following points: > > 1) assign to all the issues one or more components to understand where more > bug/improve are present (done). > > 2) for the INCORPORATED ISSUE (issue that contains link to single issue) I > would like to switch those to the new fictitious component and so I have > started to move those issues. > Doing this second step we will have a real view on which components have more > issues and need more help. > Some current INCORPORATED ISSUE has now all the linked issues closed but the > main issue has been not yet closed. > > 3) at the moment committer cannot understand easily which issue has already > patch attached to it and issue that have patch review and ready to be > committed. > So it's a very big problem for a new committer like me understand where I can > help like committer or like contributor. > I ask if we can add also a new state patch available and patch tested or > ready to be committed. > > So doing those and others chages can help and speed up in resolution and > contribution by committer/developer. > > I would like to receive some feedbacks otherwise I'm thinking that normally > people accept my proposals. > > Thanks in advance > Marco > > > ------- > [ > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1151?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12553492 > ] > > Marco Risaliti commented on OFBIZ-1151: > --------------------------------------- > > Also I like this workaround to see how many INCORPORATING ISSUE are active. > Before switch the others INCORPORATING ISSUE to this new fictitious > components I will wait some other feedback from others. > > Thanks > Marco > > ------- > > Marco, > > Perhaps you should discuss these changes on the dev mailing list before > changing them. > > -Adrian > > > > > > > > > >
