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
Received on 2012-11-09 01:12:29 CET