You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com> on 2012/11/08 21:50:42 UTC
Issue #4239 'svn mergeinfo' should show a user-friendly summary
C-Mike Pilato asks in <http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4239>,
"Julian, what is the exit criteria for this issue's completion? At what point do
we call it "finished" -- or at least finished enough that future improvements
can be tracked as unique issues?"
I guess there are two questions.
1. Do folks feel it's sufficiently operative to be released in its current state, if it should happen that we get around to releasing 1.8 before I do any more work on it, and if no-one else does any more work on it?
2. What exactly should issue #4239 be tracking -- a specific actionable item, or an open list of ideas for improvement (by reference to the wiki page)?
Personally, I feel for question (1) "yes, it's just about enough to be worth releasing, although of course I'd like more", and for (2) I'd be inclined to change the issue summary to "enhancements to the mergeinfo summary", change the milestone to "unscheduled", and the priority to "a bit lower".
If no-one has other ideas, I'll update the issue accordingly.
- Julian
Re: Issue #4239 'svn mergeinfo' should show a user-friendly summary
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>.
C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 11/08/2012 03:50 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
>> C-Mike Pilato asks in
>> <http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4239>,
>>
>> "Julian, what is the exit criteria for this issue's completion?
>> At what point do we call it "finished" -- or at least finished
>> enough that future
>> improvements can be tracked as unique issues?"
>>
>> I guess there are two questions.
>>
>> 1. Do folks feel it's sufficiently operative to be released in its
>> current state, if it should happen that we get around to releasing 1.8
>> before I do any more work on it, and if no-one else does any more work on
>> it?
>>
>> 2. What exactly should issue #4239 be tracking -- a specific actionable
>> item, or an open list of ideas for improvement (by reference to the wiki
>> page)?
>>
>> Personally, I feel for question (1) "yes, it's just about enough to be
>> worth releasing, although of course I'd like more", and for (2) I'd be
>> inclined to change the issue summary to "enhancements to the mergeinfo
>> summary", change the milestone to "unscheduled", and the
>> priority to "a bit lower".
>>
>> If no-one has other ideas, I'll update the issue accordingly.
>
> I would agree with (1). Haven't used the feature extensively, but I did
> play with a handful of scenarios just to see what it did.
>
> I'm not a huge fan of open-ended issues such as you suggest for (2), because
> every time a commit is made toward that issue, the dev has to evaluate
> whether completion of the task has been achieved. Not sure which is the
> bigger evil, though: open-ended long-running issues, or the proliferation
> of tiny related task issues. Maybe something in-between? *shrug. No
> strong opinion here.
Maybe now that we have the Wiki, it can start to take over the roles of wish-list, idea collecting and so on, that we have sometimes used the issue tracker for in the past.
- Julian
Re: Issue #4239 'svn mergeinfo' should show a user-friendly summary
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
On 11/08/2012 03:50 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> C-Mike Pilato asks in
> <http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4239>,
>
> "Julian, what is the exit criteria for this issue's completion? At what
> point do we call it "finished" -- or at least finished enough that future
> improvements can be tracked as unique issues?" I guess there are two
> questions.
>
> 1. Do folks feel it's sufficiently operative to be released in its
> current state, if it should happen that we get around to releasing 1.8
> before I do any more work on it, and if no-one else does any more work on
> it?
>
> 2. What exactly should issue #4239 be tracking -- a specific actionable
> item, or an open list of ideas for improvement (by reference to the wiki
> page)?
>
> Personally, I feel for question (1) "yes, it's just about enough to be
> worth releasing, although of course I'd like more", and for (2) I'd be
> inclined to change the issue summary to "enhancements to the mergeinfo
> summary", change the milestone to "unscheduled", and the priority to "a
> bit lower".
>
> If no-one has other ideas, I'll update the issue accordingly.
I would agree with (1). Haven't used the feature extensively, but I did
play with a handful of scenarios just to see what it did.
I'm not a huge fan of open-ended issues such as you suggest for (2), because
every time a commit is made toward that issue, the dev has to evaluate
whether completion of the task has been achieved. Not sure which is the
bigger evil, though: open-ended long-running issues, or the proliferation
of tiny related task issues. Maybe something in-between? *shrug. No
strong opinion here.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development