I'm sorry probably I made same confusion and it was not my intention to do it but instead to have a cleared situation of issues into JIRA. In any case if no one like the idea INCORPORATING ISSUE I remove it from the actual issues and if you can remove it from the components everythings go back as previously. In my opinion made some changes into JIRA can help committer/developer to understand where can contribute.
Thanks Marco > > Yeah... I'm not sure I agree with this, or like the idea of this as a > "component" at all. It seems like all of these issues are better > solved through other means, some of which has been discussed here, and > more discussion of this for anyone who isn't sure about what to do in > a certain situation is certainly appropriate. > > Unless there is a REALLY good reason to keep it I'd rather not dilute > (or destroy!) the concept of the components in the system that are > associated with something (keeping in mind that more than one > component can be associated with an issue). What I'd rather see is > that this be totally removed. What concerns me the most is that this > came out of a failure to "read before writing", or to understand > existing processes and discuss issues with them or propose extensions > to them. A lot of this is de-facto and based just on how Jira and > other things are used and isn't really documented anywhere, so the > best approach to all of this is discussion, being as specific and > concise as possible to facilitate it of course! > > If anyone (Marco, please chime in too!) has an objection to removing > it or specific reason why it is needed, then let's talk about that and > see if there is a better/cleaner way, or more likely a way that we're > already doing things. > > -David > > > On Dec 20, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > > > Marco, > > > > Yes I agree that in some cases we should use it. I kept some, please > > see http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ/component/12312085 > > for those interested. > > > > I guess how to use it is a matter of common sense. > > > > Thanks > > > > Jacques > > > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > >
