> On Nov 2, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > > > > On 11/02/2015 09:50 AM, David Jencks wrote: >> I haven’t looked at what they are doing and don’t expect I will. However, >> I’m assuming that jira changes all get to the dev list, as in all other >> projects I’ve worked on. I don’t see the point in duplicating a proposal >> between a jira issue and a separate dev list post with the same information. >> And I don’t have a problem with people working quickly. I would like to >> see that the jira issue explains sufficiently what is proposed or >> implemented in enough detail that an interested party can see how it fits in >> with the code and the purpose of the project. So I’d be concerned if the >> jira descriptions were “fix bug” or “implement javaee7” but possibly not if >> there are reasonable explanations of what is being proposed or done. > > What has been described to me is that a ticket is filed proposing a major new > feature, and then seconds later a *large* patch lands implementing that > feature, and the ticket is closed, and discussion is shut down, because it's > a done deal. >
Well, for me closing an issue by no means discussion is shut down…. I’m happy to complain years later. However irrespective of the level of detail in a jira, I’d expect it to be filed when the idea behind it is hatched, not when development on it is complete. The behavior you describe seems completely inappropriate to me, and I’m fairly shocked a mentor would support it. thanks for the clarification. david jencks --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
