[lang] Use of "Review Patch"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[lang] Use of "Review Patch"

Duncan Jones-3
Hi folks,

Currently the "Review Patch" fix version seems to be applied whenever
code has been supplied in an issue. This includes situations where
agreement hasn't yet been reached on fixing the issue and where the
supplied "patch" is minimal at best.

I would prefer if we only use this marker on issues where the
discussions have already been completed and we've decided we want to
go ahead with the alteration/addition.

Do others agree with this? If so, I'll edit existing issues to match
this. I then plan to try and clean up some of the "Discussion" items,
so that we either close them or move them to "Review Patch" or "Patch
Needed".

Duncan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lang] Use of "Review Patch"

Paul Benedict
Odd way to use versions, imo. Sounds like "discussion" and "review patch"
and "patch needed" tags would be the better tool.


Cheers,
Paul

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Duncan Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Currently the "Review Patch" fix version seems to be applied whenever
> code has been supplied in an issue. This includes situations where
> agreement hasn't yet been reached on fixing the issue and where the
> supplied "patch" is minimal at best.
>
> I would prefer if we only use this marker on issues where the
> discussions have already been completed and we've decided we want to
> go ahead with the alteration/addition.
>
> Do others agree with this? If so, I'll edit existing issues to match
> this. I then plan to try and clean up some of the "Discussion" items,
> so that we either close them or move them to "Review Patch" or "Patch
> Needed".
>
> Duncan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lang] Use of "Review Patch"

Duncan Jones-3
On 15 April 2015 at 21:19, Paul Benedict <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Odd way to use versions, imo. Sounds like "discussion" and "review patch"
> and "patch needed" tags would be the better tool.

I completely agree. But this has how it's been done historically in
Lang, so I wasn't trying to rock the boat too much with this
suggestion.

But if others agree, I'd be happy to make a more substantial change
that involves moving to Jira labels too.

Duncan

>
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Duncan Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Currently the "Review Patch" fix version seems to be applied whenever
>> code has been supplied in an issue. This includes situations where
>> agreement hasn't yet been reached on fixing the issue and where the
>> supplied "patch" is minimal at best.
>>
>> I would prefer if we only use this marker on issues where the
>> discussions have already been completed and we've decided we want to
>> go ahead with the alteration/addition.
>>
>> Do others agree with this? If so, I'll edit existing issues to match
>> this. I then plan to try and clean up some of the "Discussion" items,
>> so that we either close them or move them to "Review Patch" or "Patch
>> Needed".
>>
>> Duncan
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lang] Use of "Review Patch"

garydgregory
In reply to this post by Paul Benedict
I've never like using versions like this :-(

Gary

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Paul Benedict <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Odd way to use versions, imo. Sounds like "discussion" and "review patch"
> and "patch needed" tags would be the better tool.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Duncan Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Currently the "Review Patch" fix version seems to be applied whenever
> > code has been supplied in an issue. This includes situations where
> > agreement hasn't yet been reached on fixing the issue and where the
> > supplied "patch" is minimal at best.
> >
> > I would prefer if we only use this marker on issues where the
> > discussions have already been completed and we've decided we want to
> > go ahead with the alteration/addition.
> >
> > Do others agree with this? If so, I'll edit existing issues to match
> > this. I then plan to try and clean up some of the "Discussion" items,
> > so that we either close them or move them to "Review Patch" or "Patch
> > Needed".
> >
> > Duncan
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>



--
E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lang] Use of "Review Patch"

Benedikt Ritter-4
Hello,

I usually mark tickets as "Review Patch" when code has been suggested. I've
used "Discuss" to indicate that I'm not sure whether we should dive into
implementation at all. If a ticket has code but it looks like the wrong
approach, I use both versions. Duncan: feel free to modify tickets the ways
that you can work through them easily.

Regarding the version vs. tags discussion: Yes, using the version property
in this way is somehow strange, but it way the best which Hen and I came up
with. I don't like tags, because you can't limit the set of allowed values.
This way if someone accidentally writes "Review Pathc", we won't find it.
I think "Discussion" and "Review Patch" a phases in the ticket life cycle,
so they should be modeled as ticket states in the jira ticket workflow
definition. But I did not have the time until know to find out whether this
is possible.

Benedikt

2015-04-15 22:24 GMT+02:00 Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>:

> I've never like using versions like this :-(
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Paul Benedict <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Odd way to use versions, imo. Sounds like "discussion" and "review patch"
> > and "patch needed" tags would be the better tool.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Paul
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Duncan Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > Currently the "Review Patch" fix version seems to be applied whenever
> > > code has been supplied in an issue. This includes situations where
> > > agreement hasn't yet been reached on fixing the issue and where the
> > > supplied "patch" is minimal at best.
> > >
> > > I would prefer if we only use this marker on issues where the
> > > discussions have already been completed and we've decided we want to
> > > go ahead with the alteration/addition.
> > >
> > > Do others agree with this? If so, I'll edit existing issues to match
> > > this. I then plan to try and clean up some of the "Discussion" items,
> > > so that we either close them or move them to "Review Patch" or "Patch
> > > Needed".
> > >
> > > Duncan
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>



--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter