Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EE1FE48E2 for ; Sat, 4 Jun 2011 02:57:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 27969 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jun 2011 02:57:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 27865 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jun 2011 02:57:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 27857 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jun 2011 02:57:52 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 04 Jun 2011 02:57:52 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of sebbaz@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.43 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.212.43] (HELO mail-vw0-f43.google.com) (209.85.212.43) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 04 Jun 2011 02:57:44 +0000 Received: by vws10 with SMTP id 10so2071454vws.30 for ; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 19:57:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+6qvorV6cvr2ELOtsCKfwqMLoBd1IdPjgj3YZkaE5f0=; b=IPoD/GgNwyM+pKbHRfCTYThoaKOhYVCUoVPnsF2lMUo+ba9pDGaqT2dhedPYY2/Tqk YtNKJvHS6GZR/lM5Bwwf5yFkh2ECShI9ZrCwAucURMQM6sFNZ4gXPM4LQO+J8qP6SN9d mYLr7ejIBNxIq3DSHCczLhiWKI3EbG6Xdd57s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ET7uqhDMV5hA5Jyhrl4FeEKPDgSlAYtGEx7HuFVpBQZctZlFZ9k7ZFG9372DIK6Blx dA4/TgSgH1MZ1lyWoKHxwv98U1a9sWNmxN/FKG6zdgvkhUojKoZPXjYeGJpyr6p9PDTe gVAmPRlPZ4mfORk8nbabJ+8mZMJbwztYllm28= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.133.14 with SMTP id d14mr968540vct.19.1307156243503; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 19:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.99.72 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 19:57:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DE94A18.8070900@gmail.com> References: <4DE94A18.8070900@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 03:57:23 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: JIRA report usefulness (was: [VOTE] Release Commons NET 3.0.1 based on RC3) From: sebb To: Commons Developers List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 3 June 2011 21:54, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 6/3/11 1:15 PM, sebb wrote: >> On 3 June 2011 20:48, Gary Gregory wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:53 PM, sebb wrote: >>> >>>> On 3 June 2011 19:21, Gary Gregory 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. =A0It really helps when > troubleshooting / researching later if the correct fix and affected > versions are maintained. =A0It 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