You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com> on 2006/07/25 20:26:30 UTC
JIRAs adopter query/policy?
As the Geronimo user base grows, it is important that we be able to
distinguish between JIRAs open during a development cycle to those
that are being hit in the field or requested by companies who either
use Geronimo or build products and or plugins on top of it. So I
suggest we provide a restricted "adopter required" field in JIRA.
This adopter field would be exposed to JIRA users who request and
identify themselves as adopters. So just like our query for
available patches, we can easily query these and help ensure that
these issues that companies face get the necessary attention and help
resolve them faster then they would be otherwise.
Thoughts?
-sachin
Re: JIRAs adopter query/policy?
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Sachin Patel wrote:
> As the Geronimo user base grows, it is important that we be able to
> distinguish between JIRAs open during a development cycle to those
> that are being hit in the field or requested by companies who either
> use Geronimo or build products and or plugins on top of it. So I
> suggest we provide a restricted "adopter required" field in JIRA.
> This adopter field would be exposed to JIRA users who request and
> identify themselves as adopters. So just like our query for available
> patches, we can easily query these and help ensure that these issues
> that companies face get the necessary attention and help resolve them
> faster then they would be otherwise.
I don't think that we need to track this distinction. I cannot conceive
of a problem that this would solve that using Jira as it stands today
does not accommodate.
Regards.
Alan
Re: JIRAs adopter query/policy?
Posted by Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>.
On Jul 25, 2006, at 2:48 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> I guess this would be different than the reporter? Is this
> different than interested parties or voting for JIRAs?
Yes & Yes. This would be just an additional field just like "patch
available". I don't think voting would address this. If there are
50 open defects all of the highest priority, and 10 of them are from
companies seeing a given defect in a field and need a fix for the
upcoming release, we need a very simple way to distinguish between
what developers consider high priority and what users consider high
priority.
>
> Sachin Patel wrote:
>> As the Geronimo user base grows, it is important that we be able
>> to distinguish between JIRAs open during a development cycle to
>> those that are being hit in the field or requested by companies
>> who either use Geronimo or build products and or plugins on top of
>> it. So I suggest we provide a restricted "adopter required" field
>> in JIRA. This adopter field would be exposed to JIRA users who
>> request and identify themselves as adopters. So just like our
>> query for available patches, we can easily query these and help
>> ensure that these issues that companies face get the necessary
>> attention and help resolve them faster then they would be otherwise.
>> Thoughts?
>> -sachin
-sachin
Re: JIRAs adopter query/policy?
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
I guess this would be different than the reporter? Is this different than interested parties or
voting for JIRAs?
Sachin Patel wrote:
> As the Geronimo user base grows, it is important that we be able to
> distinguish between JIRAs open during a development cycle to those that
> are being hit in the field or requested by companies who either use
> Geronimo or build products and or plugins on top of it. So I suggest we
> provide a restricted "adopter required" field in JIRA. This adopter
> field would be exposed to JIRA users who request and identify themselves
> as adopters. So just like our query for available patches, we can
> easily query these and help ensure that these issues that companies face
> get the necessary attention and help resolve them faster then they would
> be otherwise.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -sachin
>
>
>
Re: JIRAs adopter query/policy?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Last I checked, Jeff Turner was waiting to see how the upgraded JIRA
install did memory and perf wise before installing any plugins. I
requested that these plugins get installed:
* Toolkit ( http://confluence.atlassian.com/display/JIRAEXT/JIRA
+Toolkit )
* Charting ( http://confluence.atlassian.com/display/JIRAEXT/JIRA
+Charting+Plugin )
* Labels ( http://confluence.atlassian.com/display/JIRAEXT/JIRA
+Label+Plugin )
To install, these jars need to be added to WEB-INF/lib and the app
needs to be restarted.
I ping'd Jeff about it last week and did not hear anything...
--jason
On Jul 28, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
> Good point Jason, thats probably a better way to look at it. What
> prevents us from installing the plugin? Perf?
>
> On 7/28/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hrm... I'm still unsure that we need this.
>>
>> But... dunno, now that I think about it... its just a way to allow
>> reporters
>> to group their issues.
>>
>> I wish we could get the JIRA label plugin installed, and then the
>> issues
>> could just be labeled.
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 25, 2006, at 1:11 PM, Sachin Patel wrote:
>> fyi
>>
>> http://www.eclipse.org/webtools/adopters/
>>
>>
>> On Jul 25, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>> I don't understand exactly what "adopter required" means. Someone is
>> required to adopt the issue? I don't get it :-(
>>
>> I also don't see how companies/customers should get any such
>> entity status
>> in jira for an open source project. Does one need to give more
>> priority to
>> an issue from IBM than an issue submitted by joe user? I don't
>> think so...
>> at least not based on that critical alone.
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 25, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
>> As the Geronimo user base grows, it is important that we be able to
>> distinguish between JIRAs open during a development cycle to those
>> that are
>> being hit in the field or requested by companies who either use
>> Geronimo or
>> build products and or plugins on top of it. So I suggest we
>> provide a
>> restricted "adopter required" field in JIRA. This adopter field
>> would be
>> exposed to JIRA users who request and identify themselves as
>> adopters. So
>> just like our query for available patches, we can easily query
>> these and
>> help ensure that these issues that companies face get the necessary
>> attention and help resolve them faster then they would be otherwise.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> -sachin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -sachin
>>
>>
>>
Re: Re: JIRAs adopter query/policy?
Posted by Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>.
Good point Jason, thats probably a better way to look at it. What
prevents us from installing the plugin? Perf?
On 7/28/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
>
> Hrm... I'm still unsure that we need this.
>
> But... dunno, now that I think about it... its just a way to allow reporters
> to group their issues.
>
> I wish we could get the JIRA label plugin installed, and then the issues
> could just be labeled.
>
> --jason
>
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2006, at 1:11 PM, Sachin Patel wrote:
> fyi
>
> http://www.eclipse.org/webtools/adopters/
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> I don't understand exactly what "adopter required" means. Someone is
> required to adopt the issue? I don't get it :-(
>
> I also don't see how companies/customers should get any such entity status
> in jira for an open source project. Does one need to give more priority to
> an issue from IBM than an issue submitted by joe user? I don't think so...
> at least not based on that critical alone.
>
> --jason
>
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
> As the Geronimo user base grows, it is important that we be able to
> distinguish between JIRAs open during a development cycle to those that are
> being hit in the field or requested by companies who either use Geronimo or
> build products and or plugins on top of it. So I suggest we provide a
> restricted "adopter required" field in JIRA. This adopter field would be
> exposed to JIRA users who request and identify themselves as adopters. So
> just like our query for available patches, we can easily query these and
> help ensure that these issues that companies face get the necessary
> attention and help resolve them faster then they would be otherwise.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> -sachin
>
>
>
>
>
> -sachin
>
>
>
Re: JIRAs adopter query/policy?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Hrm... I'm still unsure that we need this.
But... dunno, now that I think about it... its just a way to allow
reporters to group their issues.
I wish we could get the JIRA label plugin installed, and then the
issues could just be labeled.
--jason
On Jul 25, 2006, at 1:11 PM, Sachin Patel wrote:
> fyi
>
> http://www.eclipse.org/webtools/adopters/
>
> On Jul 25, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> I don't understand exactly what "adopter required" means. Someone
>> is required to adopt the issue? I don't get it :-(
>>
>> I also don't see how companies/customers should get any such
>> entity status in jira for an open source project. Does one need
>> to give more priority to an issue from IBM than an issue submitted
>> by joe user? I don't think so... at least not based on that
>> critical alone.
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Jul 25, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
>>
>>> As the Geronimo user base grows, it is important that we be able
>>> to distinguish between JIRAs open during a development cycle to
>>> those that are being hit in the field or requested by companies
>>> who either use Geronimo or build products and or plugins on top
>>> of it. So I suggest we provide a restricted "adopter required"
>>> field in JIRA. This adopter field would be exposed to JIRA users
>>> who request and identify themselves as adopters. So just like
>>> our query for available patches, we can easily query these and
>>> help ensure that these issues that companies face get the
>>> necessary attention and help resolve them faster then they would
>>> be otherwise.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> -sachin
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> -sachin
>
>
Re: JIRAs adopter query/policy?
Posted by Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>.
fyi
http://www.eclipse.org/webtools/adopters/
On Jul 25, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> I don't understand exactly what "adopter required" means. Someone
> is required to adopt the issue? I don't get it :-(
>
> I also don't see how companies/customers should get any such entity
> status in jira for an open source project. Does one need to give
> more priority to an issue from IBM than an issue submitted by joe
> user? I don't think so... at least not based on that critical alone.
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
>
>> As the Geronimo user base grows, it is important that we be able
>> to distinguish between JIRAs open during a development cycle to
>> those that are being hit in the field or requested by companies
>> who either use Geronimo or build products and or plugins on top of
>> it. So I suggest we provide a restricted "adopter required" field
>> in JIRA. This adopter field would be exposed to JIRA users who
>> request and identify themselves as adopters. So just like our
>> query for available patches, we can easily query these and help
>> ensure that these issues that companies face get the necessary
>> attention and help resolve them faster then they would be otherwise.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -sachin
>>
>>
>
-sachin
Re: JIRAs adopter query/policy?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
I don't understand exactly what "adopter required" means. Someone is
required to adopt the issue? I don't get it :-(
I also don't see how companies/customers should get any such entity
status in jira for an open source project. Does one need to give
more priority to an issue from IBM than an issue submitted by joe
user? I don't think so... at least not based on that critical alone.
--jason
On Jul 25, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
> As the Geronimo user base grows, it is important that we be able to
> distinguish between JIRAs open during a development cycle to those
> that are being hit in the field or requested by companies who
> either use Geronimo or build products and or plugins on top of it.
> So I suggest we provide a restricted "adopter required" field in
> JIRA. This adopter field would be exposed to JIRA users who
> request and identify themselves as adopters. So just like our
> query for available patches, we can easily query these and help
> ensure that these issues that companies face get the necessary
> attention and help resolve them faster then they would be otherwise.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -sachin
>
>
Re: JIRAs adopter query/policy?
Posted by John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com>.
ian.d.stewart@jpmchase.com wrote:
> Maybe it's just me, but this seems to smack of favoritism. Just because I
> use Geronimo as the platform for my web applications running on my home
> network, or to host my open source project, why are my bugs less important
> than those of the engineers from IBM (or JPMorgan)?
>
> It seems to me that the existing voting mechanism provides both a more
> generic and more finely tuned approach for identifying the number of users
> that are impacted by a specific issue.
>
>
I also got the same feeling when first reading it, although I'm sure
Sachin has only the best intentions raising it for discussion.
I feel a combination of setting the correct issue priority (based on the
impact to the user, e.g. a crash with no practical workaround would be a
Critical or Blocker) and use of the voting mechanism could identify hot
issues.
We may need to encourage our user base to vote for bugs (educate them
about the voting feature of JIRA) for this to work.
Regards,
John
> Ian
>
> It's better to be hated for who you are
> than loved for who you are not
>
> Ian D. Stewart
> Appl Dev Analyst-Advisory, DCS Automation
> JPMorganChase Global Technology Infrastructure
> Phone: (614) 244-2564
> Pager: (888) 260-0078
>
>
>
> Sachin Patel
> <sppatel2@gmail.c
> om> To
> Sent by: Sachin dev@geronimo.apache.org
> Patel cc
> <sppatel@gmail.co
> m> Subject
> JIRAs adopter query/policy?
>
> 07/25/2006 02:26
> PM
>
>
> Please respond to
> dev@geronimo.apac
> he.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As the Geronimo user base grows, it is important that we be able to
> distinguish between JIRAs open during a development cycle to those that are
> being hit in the field or requested by companies who either use Geronimo or
> build products and or plugins on top of it. So I suggest we provide a
> restricted "adopter required" field in JIRA. This adopter field would be
> exposed to JIRA users who request and identify themselves as adopters. So
> just like our query for available patches, we can easily query these and
> help ensure that these issues that companies face get the necessary
> attention and help resolve them faster then they would be otherwise.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -sachin
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> This transmission may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure
> under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you
> are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or
> use of the information contained herein (including any reliance
> thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission and
> any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other
> defect that might affect any computer system into which it is
> received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
> ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by
> JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as
> applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
> If you received this transmission in error, please immediately
> contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety,
> whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you.
>
>
>
Re: JIRAs adopter query/policy?
Posted by Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>.
There are other open source projects that do this. I'm not trying to
push this, but just wanted to get some input to see if this is
something that could be useful to track and differentiate between
what developers in the community contributing to geronimo are seeing
and what only "users" are seeing.
On Jul 25, 2006, at 3:03 PM, ian.d.stewart@jpmchase.com wrote:
> Maybe it's just me, but this seems to smack of favoritism. Just
> because I
> use Geronimo as the platform for my web applications running on my
> home
> network, or to host my open source project, why are my bugs less
> important
> than those of the engineers from IBM (or JPMorgan)?
>
> It seems to me that the existing voting mechanism provides both a more
> generic and more finely tuned approach for identifying the number
> of users
> that are impacted by a specific issue.
>
>
> Ian
>
> It's better to be hated for who you are
> than loved for who you are not
>
> Ian D. Stewart
> Appl Dev Analyst-Advisory, DCS Automation
> JPMorganChase Global Technology Infrastructure
> Phone: (614) 244-2564
> Pager: (888) 260-0078
>
>
>
> Sachin Patel
> <sppatel2@gmail.c
>
> om> To
> Sent by: Sachin dev@geronimo.apache.org
>
> Patel cc
> <sppatel@gmail.co
> m>
> Subject
> JIRAs adopter query/policy?
>
> 07/25/2006 02:26
> PM
>
>
> Please respond to
> dev@geronimo.apac
> he.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As the Geronimo user base grows, it is important that we be able to
> distinguish between JIRAs open during a development cycle to those
> that are
> being hit in the field or requested by companies who either use
> Geronimo or
> build products and or plugins on top of it. So I suggest we provide a
> restricted "adopter required" field in JIRA. This adopter field
> would be
> exposed to JIRA users who request and identify themselves as
> adopters. So
> just like our query for available patches, we can easily query
> these and
> help ensure that these issues that companies face get the necessary
> attention and help resolve them faster then they would be otherwise.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -sachin
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> This transmission may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure
> under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you
> are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or
> use of the information contained herein (including any reliance
> thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission and
> any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other
> defect that might affect any computer system into which it is
> received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
> ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by
> JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as
> applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
> If you received this transmission in error, please immediately
> contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety,
> whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you.
>
-sachin
Re: JIRAs adopter query/policy?
Posted by ia...@jpmchase.com.
Maybe it's just me, but this seems to smack of favoritism. Just because I
use Geronimo as the platform for my web applications running on my home
network, or to host my open source project, why are my bugs less important
than those of the engineers from IBM (or JPMorgan)?
It seems to me that the existing voting mechanism provides both a more
generic and more finely tuned approach for identifying the number of users
that are impacted by a specific issue.
Ian
It's better to be hated for who you are
than loved for who you are not
Ian D. Stewart
Appl Dev Analyst-Advisory, DCS Automation
JPMorganChase Global Technology Infrastructure
Phone: (614) 244-2564
Pager: (888) 260-0078
Sachin Patel
<sppatel2@gmail.c
om> To
Sent by: Sachin dev@geronimo.apache.org
Patel cc
<sppatel@gmail.co
m> Subject
JIRAs adopter query/policy?
07/25/2006 02:26
PM
Please respond to
dev@geronimo.apac
he.org
As the Geronimo user base grows, it is important that we be able to
distinguish between JIRAs open during a development cycle to those that are
being hit in the field or requested by companies who either use Geronimo or
build products and or plugins on top of it. So I suggest we provide a
restricted "adopter required" field in JIRA. This adopter field would be
exposed to JIRA users who request and identify themselves as adopters. So
just like our query for available patches, we can easily query these and
help ensure that these issues that companies face get the necessary
attention and help resolve them faster then they would be otherwise.
Thoughts?
-sachin
-----------------------------------------
This transmission may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or
use of the information contained herein (including any reliance
thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission and
any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other
defect that might affect any computer system into which it is
received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by
JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as
applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
If you received this transmission in error, please immediately
contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety,
whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you.