OK, its been several days and while we've not heard from EVERYONE on this, those that have provided input have agreed with this proposed approach so this coming weekend I will proceed to make these changes as described.
Thanks everyone who weighed in. Steve Bohlen [email protected] http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com http://twitter.com/sbohlen On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > agree. > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> All: >> >> As a follow on to several of the suggestions over the months re: how to >> avoid erroneous reporting of issues for the NHibernate LINQ provider under >> the (deprecated) NHLQ project instead of under the LINQ component under NH, >> I am seriously considering 'archiving' the JIRA for NHLQ (effectively, >> changing its 'public' permissions to read-only as suggested here >> http://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRA-13087 and elsewhere in response to >> similar situations). Core committers would retain full edit perms under >> this approach, but everyone else would be reduced to read-only for the NHLQ >> area of JIRA. >> >> Since (nearly) all issues reported under NHLQ are being met with either >> "this is solved with the new LINQ provider in the core of NH3.x" or "can you >> please re-post your issues under the LINQ component of the JIRA for the core >> NH project?", this seems the simplest thing to do in order to avoid any >> additional erroneous issue reporting under the 'wrong' JIRA project. The >> most recent issue opened under NHLQ ( >> http://216.121.112.228/browse/NHLQ-99) probably also satisfies this same >> criteria. >> >> I can't see any reason anyone would object to this move, but please let me >> know if anyone has any compelling reason NOT to proceed in this manner. >> Otherwise, I will proceed as outlined here early next week. >> >> Steve Bohlen >> [email protected] >> http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com >> http://twitter.com/sbohlen >> > > > > -- > Fabio Maulo > >
