flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Marking affected and fixed versions in JIRA
Date Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:41:31 GMT
@Vasia: I don't know. I use "Closed" for issues which are invalid or won't
fix.
Resolved for those that were implemented.

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Vasiliki Kalavri <vasilikikalavri@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Thanks for this Robert! I updated the gelly-related closed issues.
> BTW, what's the difference between closed and resolved? Any case where we
> should use one over the other?
>
> -Vasia.
>
> On 18 March 2015 at 10:34, Robert Metzger <rmetzger@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I would appreciate if everyone who is merging pull requests is properly
> > setting the "fix version" in JIRA.
> >
> > So in most cases, the "fix version" is the next major release, currently
> > 0.9.
> > If we're not setting this, the issue will not appear in the changelog of
> > the release. Also, I think that users may find JIRAs via Google, then
> this
> > information helps them to know when the feature will be available.
> > Also, the fancy marketing metric (XY issues resolved) is suffering ;)
> >
> >
> > By the way, does anybody know why we can not set the "fix version" for
> > "Closed" JIRAs (instead of "Resolved")? In the "Resolved" case, we can
> > still change that.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Fabian Hueske <fhueske@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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 <uce@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > it
> > > > was fixed.
> > > >
> > > > Example: if I fix something in the current master (assuming current
> > > master
> > > > 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
> > > and
> > > > unreleased) as well?
> > > >
> > > > – Ufuk
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message