bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joachim Dreimann <joachim.dreim...@wandisco.com>
Subject Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #521: Relations error on ticket page
Date Mon, 13 May 2013 10:56:32 GMT
On 11 May 2013 08:36, Andrej Golcov <andrej@digiverse.si> wrote:

> On 10 May 2013 19:09, Joachim Dreimann <joachim.dreimann@wandisco.com>
> wrote:
> > I've been trying to look into the status of the relations work and what
> is
> > left to be done, but I can't find any tickets relating to it:
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/query?component=relations&or&keywords=~relations&col=id&col=summary&col=owner&col=type&col=status&col=priority&col=milestone&order=priority
> >
> > I checked the BEP but again there's no indication on what progress has
> been
> > made, no indication on what is outstanding and no tickets are linked to
> > from there:
> > https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/wiki/Proposals/BEP-0006
> I didn't feel need for tickets fro BEP-0006 during bhrelations base
> code setup, defining requirements, and discussion on the mailing list.
> But now, when the next release is close, I agree with Joachim that
> tracking of bhrelations progress is important.
> I suggest "bhrealtions" keyword for tickets if you don't mind.
>

Relations are a component of Bloodhound, and a "relations" component is
already set up, so I would suggest that's the best way to distinguish
relations tickets. You can of course use keywords in addition to that.

As for tickets, of course we don't need them for mailing list discussions.
"Code setup" seems vague in scope but I would argue that much more than
setting up has been done so far. The wider community would have benefitted
from this being codified in tickets for the reasons I mentioned above.
Once requirements are defined in the BEP, they should be broken down into
reasonably sized tickets. Being able to find / point at unambiguous tickets
defining outstanding work also lowers the barriers to entry for new
contributors.

- Joe


>
> >> I'm running into issues with it now but can't tell whether it's already
> > known, a stopgap - the issue has been around for at least a few days
> before
> > I raised it:
> > https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/521
> As I mentioned in ticket, the problem was in moving the widget in
> bhrealtaions.* namespace that was not enabled by default. In fresh
> installation, components from bhrealtaions.* are enabled by default
> but the existing installations must be fixed manually by enabling
> bhrealtaions.* in ini file. Nigthly build demo also has to have
> bhrelations.* enabled.
>
> I suggest to make the widget including conditional, just in case if an
> admin decides to disable bhrelations plugin. Any objections on this?


> > What is happening here? This is a major feature for our issue tracker
> that
> > seems to have no representation in trackable issues.
> Bhrelations API is more or less done. Missing major parts so far are
> UI (widget on ticket page, relation management page) and notifications
> on modification.  I'll setup main remaining issues and will update the
> BEP-0006 wiki page to show the list of related issues.
>
> Cheers, Andrej


-- 
Joe Dreimann | *User Experience Designer* | WANdisco<http://www.wandisco.com/>

@jdreimann <https://twitter.com/jdreimann>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message