db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hille...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: What fix version to use for fixes merged to the 10.3 branch?
Date Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:07:18 GMT
Kathey Marsden wrote:
> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>> Bryan Pendleton wrote:
>>> I think the Fix Versions for the 10.3 branch may need a little
>>> tweaking in Jira.
>>>
>>> 10.3.1.4 is showing up as an "unreleased version", but it seems
>>> like it ought to be moved to the "released version" section,
>>> and I think maybe we need a new "unreleased version" value for
>>> changes newly-merged to the 10.3 branch?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> bryan
>>>
>> Thanks for pointing this out, Bryan. I have marked 10.3.1.4 as 
>> released. I have also added 10.3.2.0 as the next release vehicle on 
>> the 10.3 branch.
>>
> I thought tradition was to bump the forth digit after release. 
> (10.3.1.5) and wait until shortly before the maintenance release to 
> bump to 10.3.2.0, to indicate the additional testing was done for the 
> maintenance release.   This is a useful model for users pulling fixes 
> off of the  maintenance branch, because the version shows that their 
> have been changes since the official release but no additional formal 
> testing done beyond the nightlies.
>
> http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/versionupgrade.html
>
>
This is a useful survey of the meanings attached to components of our 
release ids. However, this survey does not give much guidance about how 
to fill in the JIRA fields. Is there some reference on our website or 
wiki which lays out the conventions here? There's not much at 
http://db.apache.org/derby/DerbyBugGuidelines.html either.

What's the meaning of the 10.3.1.5 id? Where is it appropriate to use 
this id in a JIRA?

1) The Affects Versions field? Seems like the wrong choice for that 
field. I would expect to see a released version in that field. 10.3.1.5 
is a moving target. It could refer to any of a number of points in 
subversion time on the 10.3 branch. That makes it inappropriate for this 
field. The person reproducing the bug will want to work with a well 
defined version, not a moving target.

2) The Fix Versions field? Seems like an even worse choice for that 
field. There will never be a 10.3.1.5 release. If there is a new release 
on the 10.3 branch, it will be called something like 10.3.2.x.

3) Is there some other field that this id is appropriate for?

Thanks,
-Rick

Mime
View raw message