> you may accept that, for us, your issues are not so important for the > project... and that's just how it works. I fully understand and accept that! It's an open source project after all, so no one can make any request.
> The existing descriptions in JIRA are almost entirely the defaults that one > gets OOB w JIRA and it would probably be worth changing them to reflect how > they are really used +1 > whether we permit reporters to select priority at creation time or not. A very good point. Maybe it would be easier (and clearer) if only developers could set a priority. I think that's also the way issue priority is handled at codeplex.com On 18 Jul., 18:23, John Davidson <[email protected]> wrote: > To go back to Fabio's question about Oracle's position. With regard to NH-2792 > Oracle has 2 ways of binding parameters. One is binding by position and the > second is binding by name. I am not sure which mechanism NHibernate uses, > but binding by position is the default. This means that each parameter must > be specified in the order it occurs in the query and that parameters not be > repeated. Binding by name allows parameters to be bound in any order and > parameters that are used in multiple places are only defined once. > > John Davidson > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> wrote: > > ** If we can reach consensus, I can make either or both changes. > > > -Steve B. > > ------------------------------ > > *From: * "Stephen Bohlen" <[email protected]> > > *Date: *Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:06:55 +0000 > > *To: *<[email protected]> > > *ReplyTo: * [email protected] > > *Subject: *Re: [nhibernate-development] Re: Jira issue priorities > > > I believe that is the current prioritization scheme as well (allowing for > > an outlier here and there when a potentially significant issue without tests > > is determined by the committers to be significant enough to move up in the > > queue of course). > > > The existing descriptions in JIRA are almost entirely the defaults that one > > gets OOB w JIRA and it would probably be worth changing them to reflect how > > they are really used so that people don't ask this very (reasonable) > > question when trying to correlate the values they see applied w their > > descriptions. > > > There's a whole second decision here to make in re: whether we permit > > reporters to select priority at creation time or not. What do people think > > about making that change too --? > > > -Steve B. > > ------------------------------ > > *From: * Ramon Smits <[email protected]> > > *Sender: * [email protected] > > *Date: *Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:53:40 +0200 > > *To: *<[email protected]> > > *ReplyTo: * [email protected] > > *Subject: *Re: [nhibernate-development] Re: Jira issue priorities > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Sure, > >> as you said there are lot of always-subjective variables involved, so much > >> that the time to explain and then justify and talk about them is so long > >> that, in the same lapse, we can fix around 40 opened issues. > >> I don't like to talk about taste and "fried air", instead I prefer > >> effective fixes/fix-proposals. > > > +10 for that :-) but then again, why let the submitter set a priority as > > for a submitter the priority will likely always be high. > > > Maybe just say the usual workflow it that bugs/patches/whatever are fixed > > based on number of votes and having reproducable unittests and not look at > > the priority at all as my guess that is already the current workflow. > > > Ramon
