Hi Markus
Thanks very much for the huge effort you put in to update these bug
priorities. I for one, also hope that as many of these bugs are fixed
as possible or appropriately responded to.
I will pass on the spec violation related bugs to the concerned team(s)
to evaluate it.
Thanks
Shreedhar
Markus Karg wrote:
>
> Shreedhar and Jerome,
>
>
>
> as I had been asked for, I finally overhauled my bug reports today and
> increased the priority according to the justifications found in
> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/public/IssueTrackerPriority.html (the
> justification was added as a comment to the issue, so if anybody
> thinks I am wrong please add your justification according to
> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/public/IssueTrackerPriority.html when
> lowering priority). I hope that now the developers better understand
> the severity of the problems and can decide to fix at least the most
> problematic bugs before V3 FCS. Also it would be great if in future
> the priority would not get lowered due to other reasons than those
> described in
> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/public/IssueTrackerPriority.html,
> because it is really frustrating to see that a severe bugs gets
> lowered in its *priority* just due to scarce time or manpower (this
> does not make the bug any better or improve the situation for anybody
> in any form but just leads to a product shipped with severe bugs still
> inside, what cannot be the target of the GlassFish project [is it?]).
>
>
>
> As I had been asked for further, here are several links to particular
> groups of bugs:
>
>
>
> This URLs directly point to the issues I would designate as violations
> of the according specification (justifications see in the particular
> comments):
>
>
>
> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7722
>
> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7014
>
> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7073
>
> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4199
>
> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4856
>
> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5642
>
> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5643
>
> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5644
>
> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5678
>
> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4912
>
> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4939
>
> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4940
>
>
>
> This URL will list all P1, P2 and P3 DEFECTS reported by me in
> GlassFish v2ur2 (according to Jerome Dochez this is what Sun tries to
> fix before GFv3 FCS):
> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/buglist.cgi?Submit+query=Submit+query&issue_type=DEFECT&component=glassfish&issue_status=UNCONFIRMED&issue_status=NEW&issue_status=STARTED&issue_status=REOPENED&priority=P1&priority=P2&priority=P3&email1=mkarg&emailtype1=exact&emailreporter1=1&email2=&emailtype2=exact&emailreporter2=1&issueidtype=include&issue_id=&changedin=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&short_desc=&short_desc_type=fulltext&long_desc=&long_desc_type=fulltext&issue_file_loc=&issue_file_loc_type=fulltext&status_whiteboard=&status_whiteboard_type=fulltext&keywords=&keywords_type=anytokens&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=&cmdtype=doit&newqueryname=&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time
> <https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/buglist.cgi?Submit+query=Submit+query&issue_type=DEFECT&component=glassfish&issue_status=UNCONFIRMED&issue_status=NEW&issue_status=STARTED&issue_status=REOPENED&priority=P1&priority=P2&priority=P3&email1=mkarg&emailtype1=exact&emailreporter1=1&email2=&emailtype2=exact&emailreporter2=1&issueidtype=include&issue_id=&changedin=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&short_desc=&short_desc_type=fulltext&long_desc=&long_desc_type=fulltext&issue_file_loc=&issue_file_loc_type=fulltext&status_whiteboard=&status_whiteboard_type=fulltext&keywords=&keywords_type=anytokens&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=&cmdtype=doit&newqueryname=&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time>
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Markus
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Shreedhar.Ganapathy_at_Sun.COM [mailto:Shreedhar.Ganapathy_at_Sun.COM]
> *Sent:* Montag, 27. April 2009 22:14
> *To:* dev_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> *Subject:* Re: When will "old" issues get fixed?
>
>
>
> Hi Markus
> Could you send out a pointer to the bugs you filed and perhaps also a
> separate list of those that you feel are spec violations?
>
> Thanks
> Shreedhar
>
> Markus Karg wrote:
>
> Thanks for this information. Actually in some places somebody lowered
> the priority with the justification that it will be automatically
> rised again after GF2.1. Seems that automatic rise doesn't happen, so
> I'd like to ask not to write info like that into the tracker. People
> like me think it actually will happen.
>
>
>
> So now I'll check all my 98 issues once more and rise those worth of
> fixing (isn't it ironic? I mean, I do not spend ANY work into filing
> an issue if I am not convinced that actually it IS worth fixing)...
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Markus
>
>
>
> *From:* Jerome.Dochez_at_Sun.COM <mailto:Jerome.Dochez_at_Sun.COM>
> [mailto:Jerome.Dochez_at_Sun.COM]
> *Sent:* Freitag, 24. April 2009 18:31
> *To:* dev_at_glassfish.dev.java.net <mailto:dev_at_glassfish.dev.java.net>
> *Subject:* Re: When will "old" issues get fixed?
>
>
>
> Hi Markus
>
>
>
> I can see that most of your bugs are filed at P4, although I cannot
> guarantee we will fix all 98 of them, I think you should raise the
> priority (P3) of the ones that are particularly important to you so
> the developers get notified and look at them. In theory all P1 to P3s
> are fixed for FCS so if you can convince the developer that some of
> these bugs are worthy P3 then it will have to be fixed.
>
>
>
> jerome
>
>
>
> On Apr 24, 2009, at 2:42 AM, Markus Karg wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I understand that the road map for GFv3 ist very tight, but on the
> other hand I'd like to ask whether "old" issues (reported in GFv2)
> will ever get fixed? The reason is that I reported 98 issues of which
> not a single issue got fixed so far. Some of them are violations of
> the Java EE 5 specification. So I wonder whether this ever will get
> fixed? Any plans?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Markus
>
>
>