You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Justin Ross <jr...@redhat.com> on 2010/11/01 16:46:58 UTC
Jira status
I've been looking at the state of things in Jira, and I've noticed we have
a lot of bugs with an empty fix version field.
This leaves them in an ambiguous state. Should all of them be considered
for the current release? Should all of them be considered deferred?
I suspect it's neither, and each bug needs to be marked as either "up for
consideration" or deferred. I was considering asking folks to set fix
version to 0.9, but it would be better still if we had a way to target
"some future release".
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Jira status
Posted by Justin Ross <jr...@redhat.com>.
Awesome! Thanks, Robbie.
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> I have addded a 'Future' version to JIRA. So, unless someone objects
> for some reason, done...
>
> Robbie
>
> On 1 November 2010 16:20, Justin Ross <jr...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Could we add a fix version option called "Future"?
>>
>> By virtue of Jira defaults, your average lazy or uncertain bug reporter will
>> produce Unscheduled tickets. When they do, we've lost some information,
>> because we can't distinguish that ticket from the ones we intentionally
>> deferred (as you described doing recently).
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> On Mon, 1 Nov 2010, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Justin,
>>>
>>> I just updated lots of JIRAs to have an empty Fix For from 0.7. This
>>> means they are included in the 'Unscheduled' version on our JIRA
>>> front page, though the individual JIRAs dont display that word which I
>>> think they should...hint Atlassian. They may or may not make it into
>>> the 0.9/0.10 release at some point.
>>>
>>> The reason for doing this is that every time we move JIRAs from one
>>> release straight to the next and then they still dont get worked on,
>>> come this point in the release cycle the <strikethrough>poor
>>> sod<strikethrough/> volunteer acting as Release Manager then has to
>>> update hundreds of JIRAs to move them on yet again (I may have just
>>> spent a while today doing that :P). By removing the Fox For entirely,
>>> it means the person working on the item, whos should naturally be
>>> updating the JIRA with the current status anyway, then just has to
>>> schedule it into the appropriate version as it is progressed.
>>>
>>> Having a(n accurate) future plan of versions would be nice, but relies
>>> on people actually moving issues to the correct version at the correct
>>> time, something most of us developers are a little too lazy about :)
>>>
>>> Robbie
>>>
>>> On 1 November 2010 15:46, Justin Ross <jr...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've been looking at the state of things in Jira, and I've noticed we
>>>> have a
>>>> lot of bugs with an empty fix version field.
>>>>
>>>> This leaves them in an ambiguous state. Should all of them be considered
>>>> for the current release? Should all of them be considered deferred?
>>>>
>>>> I suspect it's neither, and each bug needs to be marked as either "up for
>>>> consideration" or deferred. I was considering asking folks to set fix
>>>> version to 0.9, but it would be better still if we had a way to target
>>>> "some
>>>> future release".
>>>>
>>>> Justin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
>>>> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
>>>> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
>>> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
>>> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
>> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
>> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Jira status
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
I have addded a 'Future' version to JIRA. So, unless someone objects
for some reason, done...
Robbie
On 1 November 2010 16:20, Justin Ross <jr...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Could we add a fix version option called "Future"?
>
> By virtue of Jira defaults, your average lazy or uncertain bug reporter will
> produce Unscheduled tickets. When they do, we've lost some information,
> because we can't distinguish that ticket from the ones we intentionally
> deferred (as you described doing recently).
>
> Justin
>
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2010, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
>> Hi Justin,
>>
>> I just updated lots of JIRAs to have an empty Fix For from 0.7. This
>> means they are included in the 'Unscheduled' version on our JIRA
>> front page, though the individual JIRAs dont display that word which I
>> think they should...hint Atlassian. They may or may not make it into
>> the 0.9/0.10 release at some point.
>>
>> The reason for doing this is that every time we move JIRAs from one
>> release straight to the next and then they still dont get worked on,
>> come this point in the release cycle the <strikethrough>poor
>> sod<strikethrough/> volunteer acting as Release Manager then has to
>> update hundreds of JIRAs to move them on yet again (I may have just
>> spent a while today doing that :P). By removing the Fox For entirely,
>> it means the person working on the item, whos should naturally be
>> updating the JIRA with the current status anyway, then just has to
>> schedule it into the appropriate version as it is progressed.
>>
>> Having a(n accurate) future plan of versions would be nice, but relies
>> on people actually moving issues to the correct version at the correct
>> time, something most of us developers are a little too lazy about :)
>>
>> Robbie
>>
>> On 1 November 2010 15:46, Justin Ross <jr...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been looking at the state of things in Jira, and I've noticed we
>>> have a
>>> lot of bugs with an empty fix version field.
>>>
>>> This leaves them in an ambiguous state. Should all of them be considered
>>> for the current release? Should all of them be considered deferred?
>>>
>>> I suspect it's neither, and each bug needs to be marked as either "up for
>>> consideration" or deferred. I was considering asking folks to set fix
>>> version to 0.9, but it would be better still if we had a way to target
>>> "some
>>> future release".
>>>
>>> Justin
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
>>> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
>>> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
>> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
>> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Jira status
Posted by Justin Ross <jr...@redhat.com>.
Could we add a fix version option called "Future"?
By virtue of Jira defaults, your average lazy or uncertain bug reporter
will produce Unscheduled tickets. When they do, we've lost some
information, because we can't distinguish that ticket from the ones we
intentionally deferred (as you described doing recently).
Justin
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
> I just updated lots of JIRAs to have an empty Fix For from 0.7. This
> means they are included in the 'Unscheduled' version on our JIRA
> front page, though the individual JIRAs dont display that word which I
> think they should...hint Atlassian. They may or may not make it into
> the 0.9/0.10 release at some point.
>
> The reason for doing this is that every time we move JIRAs from one
> release straight to the next and then they still dont get worked on,
> come this point in the release cycle the <strikethrough>poor
> sod<strikethrough/> volunteer acting as Release Manager then has to
> update hundreds of JIRAs to move them on yet again (I may have just
> spent a while today doing that :P). By removing the Fox For entirely,
> it means the person working on the item, whos should naturally be
> updating the JIRA with the current status anyway, then just has to
> schedule it into the appropriate version as it is progressed.
>
> Having a(n accurate) future plan of versions would be nice, but relies
> on people actually moving issues to the correct version at the correct
> time, something most of us developers are a little too lazy about :)
>
> Robbie
>
> On 1 November 2010 15:46, Justin Ross <jr...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> I've been looking at the state of things in Jira, and I've noticed we have a
>> lot of bugs with an empty fix version field.
>>
>> This leaves them in an ambiguous state. Should all of them be considered
>> for the current release? Should all of them be considered deferred?
>>
>> I suspect it's neither, and each bug needs to be marked as either "up for
>> consideration" or deferred. I was considering asking folks to set fix
>> version to 0.9, but it would be better still if we had a way to target "some
>> future release".
>>
>> Justin
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
>> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
>> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Jira status
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
Hi Justin,
I just updated lots of JIRAs to have an empty Fix For from 0.7. This
means they are included in the 'Unscheduled' version on our JIRA
front page, though the individual JIRAs dont display that word which I
think they should...hint Atlassian. They may or may not make it into
the 0.9/0.10 release at some point.
The reason for doing this is that every time we move JIRAs from one
release straight to the next and then they still dont get worked on,
come this point in the release cycle the <strikethrough>poor
sod<strikethrough/> volunteer acting as Release Manager then has to
update hundreds of JIRAs to move them on yet again (I may have just
spent a while today doing that :P). By removing the Fox For entirely,
it means the person working on the item, whos should naturally be
updating the JIRA with the current status anyway, then just has to
schedule it into the appropriate version as it is progressed.
Having a(n accurate) future plan of versions would be nice, but relies
on people actually moving issues to the correct version at the correct
time, something most of us developers are a little too lazy about :)
Robbie
On 1 November 2010 15:46, Justin Ross <jr...@redhat.com> wrote:
> I've been looking at the state of things in Jira, and I've noticed we have a
> lot of bugs with an empty fix version field.
>
> This leaves them in an ambiguous state. Should all of them be considered
> for the current release? Should all of them be considered deferred?
>
> I suspect it's neither, and each bug needs to be marked as either "up for
> consideration" or deferred. I was considering asking folks to set fix
> version to 0.9, but it would be better still if we had a way to target "some
> future release".
>
> Justin
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org