C. Michael Pilato wrote: > On 11/08/2012 03:50 PM, Julian Foad wrote: >> C-Mike Pilato asks in >> <http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4239>, >> >> "Julian, what is the exit criteria for this issue's completion? >> At what point do we call it "finished" -- or at least finished >> enough that future >> improvements can be tracked as unique issues?" >> >> I guess there are two questions. >> >> 1. Do folks feel it's sufficiently operative to be released in its >> current state, if it should happen that we get around to releasing 1.8 >> before I do any more work on it, and if no-one else does any more work on >> it? >> >> 2. What exactly should issue #4239 be tracking -- a specific actionable >> item, or an open list of ideas for improvement (by reference to the wiki >> page)? >> >> Personally, I feel for question (1) "yes, it's just about enough to be >> worth releasing, although of course I'd like more", and for (2) I'd be >> inclined to change the issue summary to "enhancements to the mergeinfo >> summary", change the milestone to "unscheduled", and the >> priority to "a bit lower". >> >> If no-one has other ideas, I'll update the issue accordingly. > > I would agree with (1). Haven't used the feature extensively, but I did > play with a handful of scenarios just to see what it did. > > I'm not a huge fan of open-ended issues such as you suggest for (2), because > every time a commit is made toward that issue, the dev has to evaluate > whether completion of the task has been achieved. Not sure which is the > bigger evil, though: open-ended long-running issues, or the proliferation > of tiny related task issues. Maybe something in-between? *shrug. No > strong opinion here.
Maybe now that we have the Wiki, it can start to take over the roles of wish-list, idea collecting and so on, that we have sometimes used the issue tracker for in the past. - Julian
