You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@maven.apache.org by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> on 2014/01/29 18:23:39 UTC
Closing as "Won't Fix" and "Fix Version" combo
At times, we close issues as "Won't Fix" but leave the version number on
it. I can understand why someone might do that, but I think it creates more
confusion than good. For example, we publish the JIRA ticket on the Maven
site for each new version -- but without status, I think it's normal for
people to believe all these tickets were fixed.
What do you all think of agreeing to remove the version if it is "Won't
Fix"? If it's not being fixed, the "Fix Version" really loses its meaning.
Don't forget we always have the "Affects Version" to track what version it
was reported against.
--
Cheers,
Paul
Re: Closing as "Won't Fix" and "Fix Version" combo
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@takari.io>.
Sure, makes sense to remove the version.
On Jan 29, 2014, at 12:23 PM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
> At times, we close issues as "Won't Fix" but leave the version number on
> it. I can understand why someone might do that, but I think it creates more
> confusion than good. For example, we publish the JIRA ticket on the Maven
> site for each new version -- but without status, I think it's normal for
> people to believe all these tickets were fixed.
>
> What do you all think of agreeing to remove the version if it is "Won't
> Fix"? If it's not being fixed, the "Fix Version" really loses its meaning.
> Don't forget we always have the "Affects Version" to track what version it
> was reported against.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Paul
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
http://twitter.com/takari_io
---------------------------------------------------------
A language that doesn’t affect the way you think about programming is not worth knowing.
-- Alan Perlis
Re: Closing as "Won't Fix" and "Fix Version" combo
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@takari.io>.
Thank, Paul.
On Jan 29, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
> Done. There were a few tickets also "Incomplete" and "Not a Bug" and
> "Cannot Reproduce" statuses. Those are all conceptually the same thing as
> "Won't Fix" in regards to not taking any development action. So 7 tickets
> got moved out of the 3.2 report list, which will greatly help our users on
> what work was actually accomplished.
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Okay, I can go through the 3.2 tickets and do that unless someone objects.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Anders Hammar <an...@hammar.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>> /Anders (mobile)
>>> Den 29 jan 2014 18:24 skrev "Paul Benedict" <pb...@apache.org>:
>>>
>>>> At times, we close issues as "Won't Fix" but leave the version number on
>>>> it. I can understand why someone might do that, but I think it creates
>>> more
>>>> confusion than good. For example, we publish the JIRA ticket on the
>>> Maven
>>>> site for each new version -- but without status, I think it's normal for
>>>> people to believe all these tickets were fixed.
>>>>
>>>> What do you all think of agreeing to remove the version if it is "Won't
>>>> Fix"? If it's not being fixed, the "Fix Version" really loses its
>>> meaning.
>>>> Don't forget we always have the "Affects Version" to track what version
>>> it
>>>> was reported against.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Paul
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Paul
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
http://twitter.com/takari_io
---------------------------------------------------------
A man enjoys his work when he understands the whole and when he
is responsible for the quality of the whole
-- Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language
Re: Closing as "Won't Fix" and "Fix Version" combo
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
Done. There were a few tickets also "Incomplete" and "Not a Bug" and
"Cannot Reproduce" statuses. Those are all conceptually the same thing as
"Won't Fix" in regards to not taking any development action. So 7 tickets
got moved out of the 3.2 report list, which will greatly help our users on
what work was actually accomplished.
Cheers,
Paul
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
> Okay, I can go through the 3.2 tickets and do that unless someone objects.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Anders Hammar <an...@hammar.net> wrote:
>
>> I agree.
>>
>> /Anders (mobile)
>> Den 29 jan 2014 18:24 skrev "Paul Benedict" <pb...@apache.org>:
>>
>> > At times, we close issues as "Won't Fix" but leave the version number on
>> > it. I can understand why someone might do that, but I think it creates
>> more
>> > confusion than good. For example, we publish the JIRA ticket on the
>> Maven
>> > site for each new version -- but without status, I think it's normal for
>> > people to believe all these tickets were fixed.
>> >
>> > What do you all think of agreeing to remove the version if it is "Won't
>> > Fix"? If it's not being fixed, the "Fix Version" really loses its
>> meaning.
>> > Don't forget we always have the "Affects Version" to track what version
>> it
>> > was reported against.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Cheers,
>> > Paul
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
--
Cheers,
Paul
Re: Closing as "Won't Fix" and "Fix Version" combo
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
Okay, I can go through the 3.2 tickets and do that unless someone objects.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Anders Hammar <an...@hammar.net> wrote:
> I agree.
>
> /Anders (mobile)
> Den 29 jan 2014 18:24 skrev "Paul Benedict" <pb...@apache.org>:
>
> > At times, we close issues as "Won't Fix" but leave the version number on
> > it. I can understand why someone might do that, but I think it creates
> more
> > confusion than good. For example, we publish the JIRA ticket on the Maven
> > site for each new version -- but without status, I think it's normal for
> > people to believe all these tickets were fixed.
> >
> > What do you all think of agreeing to remove the version if it is "Won't
> > Fix"? If it's not being fixed, the "Fix Version" really loses its
> meaning.
> > Don't forget we always have the "Affects Version" to track what version
> it
> > was reported against.
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Paul
> >
>
--
Cheers,
Paul
Re: Closing as "Won't Fix" and "Fix Version" combo
Posted by Anders Hammar <an...@hammar.net>.
I agree.
/Anders (mobile)
Den 29 jan 2014 18:24 skrev "Paul Benedict" <pb...@apache.org>:
> At times, we close issues as "Won't Fix" but leave the version number on
> it. I can understand why someone might do that, but I think it creates more
> confusion than good. For example, we publish the JIRA ticket on the Maven
> site for each new version -- but without status, I think it's normal for
> people to believe all these tickets were fixed.
>
> What do you all think of agreeing to remove the version if it is "Won't
> Fix"? If it's not being fixed, the "Fix Version" really loses its meaning.
> Don't forget we always have the "Affects Version" to track what version it
> was reported against.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Paul
>