db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Knut Anders Hatlen <Knut.Hat...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Use of Jira "Fix In"
Date Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:55:11 GMT
Dag.Wanvik@Sun.COM (Dag H. Wanvik) writes:

> Kristian Waagan <Kristian.Waagan@Sun.COM> writes:
>
>> I believe we are supposed to set the fix version to the version shown
>> by sysinfo. On the 10.5 branch it currently shows 10.5.3.1.
>> Further I thought that when / if we decide to produce a 10.5.4.X, Jira
>> is used to bulk update all issues with fix version set to 10.5.3.1
>> such that they will have 10.5.4.0 set instead. Finally, wouldn't we
>> remove 10.5.3.1 from the list of versions in Jira, by merging it with
>> 10.5.4.0?

I think the above is actually a single step: Merge 10.5.3.1 into
10.5.4.0. This will make all the issues marked as fixed in 10.5.3.1 show
up as fixed in 10.5.4.0, and no bulk update is needed up front.

> This makes sense, really. But then, why have we added 10.5.4.0 to JIRA
> already? 

To have the possibility to flag that an issue is intended to be fixed in
the next update release. But since the current policy is to set the
fixed-in only after the issue has actually been fixed, I don't think
having that version tag available adds much value, and I'm +1 to
removing it in order to keep the list of version tags shorter and less
confusing.

> Several of us have marked issue for fix in 10.5.4.0 already; should we
> go over those and clear that field, do you think? (as well as making
> sure 10.5.3.1 is set - and similarly for older branches..)

It would make the bug database more consistent, so feel free... :)

> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=10594&fixfor=12314154&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC

In this list, at least three issues (DERBY-4081, DERBY-4092, DERBY-4213)
were originally marked as fixed in 10.5.3.1 (this can be seen by picking
the "All" tab). For some reason, the fix version says 10.5.4.0. All of
these issues were fixed after the 10.5.3.0 release was produced and
before it was actually released, so I'd guess something went wrong in
the process of merging version tags into 10.5.3.0.

-- 
Knut Anders

Mime
View raw message