On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 14 January 2011 17:31, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I would rather start complaining about specific commits which should have > > had a Jira referenced and do not - the 'name and shame' approach! > > > > Automated enforcement of this sort can sometimes enforce the letter of > the > > law without really doing much for its spirit. > > > > True, but that could be a very long list... :) > Agreed with Robbie here. We all need to make an effort here rather than depend on policing. It's counter productive. A new feature or a bug fix should have a corresponding JIRA. I for one have benefited a lot from this approach as it really helps to understand the context for a given commit. As for QIPs - I find the write ups (that have been posted so far) fairly useful in figuring out what the person is planning/proposing. A standard format which captures key information forces a person to think through when they compile a proposal. I think they provide a good entry point for starting a mailing list discussion. An important point to bear in mind is that QIPs are *not mandatory*. So folks who find them useful can continue to use it while folks who don't can use an alternative strategy. For folks who plan to use QIPs, I'd appreciate if the final draft is attached or linked to the relevant JIRA(s). Regards, Rajith --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] > >
