JIRA Netiquette

[Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>]

grant committed the patch in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-134 (thanks :-) and set
the issue to resolved but not closed

am i right in thinking that mahout is using the convention that the
reporter of the issue should check that the committed code works ok
then close the issue...?

(or is there some other convention at work here...)

- robert

Re: JIRA Netiquette

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

Probably just an old habit from Lucene...  I usually mark things as  
resolved and then close them later if no issues come up.  It allows  
others to chime in if they want.  Of course, there is zero cost for  
reopening in Open Source so it's not a big deal.  Especially for minor  
issues, no big deal.

On Jun 17, 2009, at 6:03 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:

> grant committed the patch in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-134 (thanks :-) and set
> the issue to resolved but not closed
>
> am i right in thinking that mahout is using the convention that the
> reporter of the issue should check that the committed code works ok
> then close the issue...?
>
> (or is there some other convention at work here...)
>
> - robert

Re: JIRA Netiquette

[Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com>]

I endorse that as the complete, right way to do it, myself. That said
I think we'd get no work done if we followed this full process for
every change we make. But, we can't work with zero coordination. So
the practical answer must be something in between.

I think we can afford to be a bit less formal on a small, and a very
young, project. I suppose I don't bother with a JIRA issue for tiny
stuff. For example, just saw some code was committed that uses log4j
directly. Since we use slf4j this didn't compile, so I just fixed it.

And on JIRA issues I assume we should use our judgment -- if Grant
concluded from his own work and other email threads it was resolved,
seems fine to mark it as such, skipping ahead, technically.

I say we use our judgment, err slightly in favor of
over-communication, and communicate openly about whether we are being
too formal or too informal.

Sean

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Robert Burrell
Donkin<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> grant committed the patch in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-134 (thanks :-) and set
> the issue to resolved but not closed
>
> am i right in thinking that mahout is using the convention that the
> reporter of the issue should check that the committed code works ok
> then close the issue...?
>
> (or is there some other convention at work here...)
>
> - robert
>