Re: New JIRA component for observation

[Michael Dürig <md...@apache.org>]

On 31.03.17 07:06, Chetan Mehrotra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Thomas Mueller <mu...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Depending on that, we can use "Maven" module boundaries, or "Logical" module boundaries.
>
> My preference is for "Logical" module boundaries and not be bounded by
> the Maven module boundaries.
>

I would prefer to stay aligned with Maven boundaries as much as possible 
as this simplifies bug reporting for parties not deeply involved with 
Oak very much. Most of the apparent need to break out of that scheme is 
to me rather a symptom of missing modularity rather than a cure. If we 
introduce logical modules in Jira, I strongly suggest to come up with a 
clear and concise definition for them: what exactly belongs to them, 
what not? What are the criteria and how are they applied. Can modules 
overlap? Do they need to stay aligned with the boundaries of the Maven 
modules or can a logical module be part of multiple Maven modules?

Michael

Re: New JIRA component for observation

[Thomas Mueller <mu...@adobe.com>]

Hi,

> I would prefer to stay aligned with Maven boundaries as much as possible 
> as this simplifies bug reporting for parties not deeply involved with 
> Oak very much.

Actually, I don't think that's a problem. I wouldn't expect such a person to specify any module (logical or maven).

>  Most of the apparent need to break out of that scheme is 
> to me rather a symptom of missing modularity rather than a cure.

It sounds like "modularity" for you means "Maven modularity". I don't agree this is the only "modularity" there is.

> If we introduce logical modules in Jira, I strongly suggest to come up with a 
> clear and concise definition for them: what exactly belongs to them, 
> what not?

Yes. And I would like to understand the reason on why we use modules (for reporting, easier to find issues,…?)

Regards,
Thomas