commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JIRA report usefulness (was: [VOTE] Release Commons NET 3.0.1 based on RC3)
Date Sat, 04 Jun 2011 02:57:23 GMT
On 3 June 2011 21:54, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/3/11 1:15 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 3 June 2011 20:48, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:53 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3 June 2011 19:21, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> +1.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to see the JIRA report be only for this release instead
of
>>>> the
>>>>> whole pile.
>>>> That's the default setting for the plugin.
>>>>
>>> Not a very useful default then :(
>>>
>>> Running vs. the previous release is a nice sanity check for the changes
>>> report which must be manually maintained.
>> That would require all JIRA issues to be marked with the correct Fix
>> version(s).
>> I'm not sure all components have been maintaining the fix issue fields.
>
> We should all be doing that, IMO.  It really helps when
> troubleshooting / researching later if the correct fix and affected
> versions are maintained.  It also serves as a de facto release plan
> when you maintain fix versions on the inventory of open issues.

I entirely agree that we should be maintaining the fix versions.

But I was just pointing out that the report does not automatically
show what has been fixed for a particular release - it's only as
reliable as the input data.

>> Also, either the JIRA issues must also be closed (not just resolved)
>> or the report must be configured to show resolved issues.
>> The work-flow tends to be that issues are closed after a release is
>> made - if ever.
>
> I think that is also best practice - resolve when fixed in SVN,
> close when fix version is released.
>
> Phil
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'd not noticed the report before.
>>>> Not sure it's all that useful - hardly any other components use it:
>>>>
>>>> ./sandbox/digester3/jira-report.html
>>>> ./digester/commons-digester-2.1/jira-report.html
>>>> ./digester/jira-report.html
>>>> ./compress/jira-report.html
>>>> ./email/jira-report.html
>>>> ./fileupload/jira-report.html
>>>> ./net/jira-report.html
>>>>
>>>> Also it only shows closed issues by default.
>>>>
>>>> I'm inclined to delete it from the next release.
>>>>
>>>>> Shouldn't the Clirr report be vs. 3.0 instead of 2.2?
>>>>>
>>>> I deliberately included 3.0 in the Release Notes and Clirr report,
>>>> because the release is basically just a corrected version of 3.0.
>>>>
>>>> As it is being released soon after 3.0, there will be many users who
>>>> will need to skip 3.0 and move from 2.x to 3.0.1.
>>>>
>>>> I meant to mention that in the original VOTE e-mail, sorry.
>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message