Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-flink-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-flink-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 CB1A117FB6 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 07:47:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 59904 invoked by uid 500); 9 Oct 2014 07:47:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-flink-dev-archive@flink.apache.org Received: (qmail 59847 invoked by uid 500); 9 Oct 2014 07:47:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@flink.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@flink.incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@flink.incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 59831 invoked by uid 99); 9 Oct 2014 07:47:06 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 07:47:06 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1997.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,HTML_MESSAGE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.3] (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 07:46:44 +0000 Received: (qmail 59331 invoked by uid 99); 9 Oct 2014 07:46:41 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org) (140.211.11.15) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 07:46:41 +0000 Received: from mail-yk0-f175.google.com (mail-yk0-f175.google.com [209.85.160.175]) by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id D1A6B1A053D for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 07:46:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yk0-f175.google.com with SMTP id 19so350004ykq.34 for ; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 00:46:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.216.37 with SMTP id f35mr23834086yhp.37.1412840797539; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 00:46:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.145.136 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 00:46:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 09:46:37 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Marking affected and fixed versions in JIRA From: Fabian Hueske To: "dev@flink.incubator.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1132ec04dc97520504f8a139 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001a1132ec04dc97520504f8a139 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes, I think more discipline with JIRA issues would be definitely good and ease the management of releases. I'd say the affected version should be initially the version (or versions) where the issue was identified. We than should check which other versions are affected and add these to the JIRA. Only the latest minor of each major release is relevant, e.g., 0.6.1 is sufficient for all 0.6 releases. 2014-10-08 21:50 GMT+02:00 Ufuk Celebi : > Hey all, > > I was wondering what the policy is for marking issues with affected and > fix versions. I know that we suggested a couple of times (in different > email threads) that it would be desirable in order to get an automatic > changelog for releases etc. > > I think the fixed versions tag is clear: you mark the version for which i= t > was fixed. > > Example: if I fix something in the current master (assuming current maste= r > has not been branched off for 0.7-incubating) and I do a back port for > 0.6.1: then I mark the fix for the unreleased 0.7-incubating version and > add the new release tag 0.6.2, right? > > What about the affected versions tag? Just the latest unreleased version, > which is affected? Or all versions, where it should be fixed (released an= d > unreleased) as well? > > =E2=80=93 Ufuk --001a1132ec04dc97520504f8a139--