Resolution != fixed and Fix version

[Frank Bille <fr...@apache.org>]

Hey all,

I'm about to write the release notes and looking through the issues with fix
version RC1 I see some issues with a status other that "Fixed"[1]. I don't
think it makes much sense to set a fix version for something that is
"invalid" or "won't fix".

WDYT?

Frank

[1]: http://tinyurl.com/288k7s

Re: Resolution != fixed and Fix version

[Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>]

I think the current setup is sufficient. Fix version + not resolved ==
planned for, Fix version + resolved == fixed in

Introducing more permutations is going to confuse the hell out of us even more.

Martijn

On 11/4/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> jip i think that jira should have 2 fields in stead of the one "fix version"
>
> something like:
>
> "planned version"/"target version"
> and
> "Fixed version" (which is the current "fix version")
>
> johan
>
>
> On 11/4/07, David Bernard <dw...@free.fr> wrote:
> >
> > You're right. It's a workaround, "fix version" should be labelled
> > "planned/done version".
> >
> > Frank Bille wrote:
> > > I got myself convinced that it was the most correct thing to not have
> > fix
> > > version with something that is not fixed.
> > >
> > > Frank
> > >
> > > On 11/4/07, Frank Bille <fr...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >> But what can use that information for? You have the timestamps on the
> > >> issue for when someone has marked it as "won't fix", which can be used
> > if
> > >> you want to reopen it.
> > >>
> > >> I think it's a mismatch between "*FIX* version" and anything other than
> > >> *FIXED*.
> > >>
> > >> My 2c.
> > >> Frank
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 11/4/07, David Bernard <dw...@free.fr> wrote:
> > >>> So how do you express :
> > >>> issue was plan for version "X"
> > >>> job was done for version "X" and the job is "won't fix" or "resolve"
> > >>> ?
> > >>>
> > >>> Frank Bille wrote:
> > >>>> Yes I think we use it the same way. But hopefully without setting the
> > >>>> "Resolution" and "Status". If you plan to fix it for a specific
> > >>> version the
> > >>>> status shouldn't be resolved or fixed and the resolution shouldn't be
> > >>> !=
> > >>>> fixed.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> IMHO,
> > >>>> Frank
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 11/4/07, David Bernard <dw...@free.fr> wrote:
> > >>>>> In my previous job, we used JIRA's "fix version" to plan "for wich
> > >>>>> version" issue must be done. Because "fix version" is used to define
> > >>> the
> > >>>>> roadmap in JIRA.
> > >>>>> Mey be it's the same case here: a workaround.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> /david
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Frank Bille wrote:
> > >>>>>> Hey all,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I'm about to write the release notes and looking through the issues
> > >>> with
> > >>>>> fix
> > >>>>>> version RC1 I see some issues with a status other that "Fixed"[1].
> > I
> > >>>>> don't
> > >>>>>> think it makes much sense to set a fix version for something that
> > is
> > >>>>>> "invalid" or "won't fix".
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> WDYT?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Frank
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> [1]: http://tinyurl.com/288k7s
> > >>>>>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>


-- 
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/

Re: Resolution != fixed and Fix version

[Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>]

jip i think that jira should have 2 fields in stead of the one "fix version"

something like:

"planned version"/"target version"
and
"Fixed version" (which is the current "fix version")

johan


On 11/4/07, David Bernard <dw...@free.fr> wrote:
>
> You're right. It's a workaround, "fix version" should be labelled
> "planned/done version".
>
> Frank Bille wrote:
> > I got myself convinced that it was the most correct thing to not have
> fix
> > version with something that is not fixed.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > On 11/4/07, Frank Bille <fr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> But what can use that information for? You have the timestamps on the
> >> issue for when someone has marked it as "won't fix", which can be used
> if
> >> you want to reopen it.
> >>
> >> I think it's a mismatch between "*FIX* version" and anything other than
> >> *FIXED*.
> >>
> >> My 2c.
> >> Frank
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/4/07, David Bernard <dw...@free.fr> wrote:
> >>> So how do you express :
> >>> issue was plan for version "X"
> >>> job was done for version "X" and the job is "won't fix" or "resolve"
> >>> ?
> >>>
> >>> Frank Bille wrote:
> >>>> Yes I think we use it the same way. But hopefully without setting the
> >>>> "Resolution" and "Status". If you plan to fix it for a specific
> >>> version the
> >>>> status shouldn't be resolved or fixed and the resolution shouldn't be
> >>> !=
> >>>> fixed.
> >>>>
> >>>> IMHO,
> >>>> Frank
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/4/07, David Bernard <dw...@free.fr> wrote:
> >>>>> In my previous job, we used JIRA's "fix version" to plan "for wich
> >>>>> version" issue must be done. Because "fix version" is used to define
> >>> the
> >>>>> roadmap in JIRA.
> >>>>> Mey be it's the same case here: a workaround.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /david
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Frank Bille wrote:
> >>>>>> Hey all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm about to write the release notes and looking through the issues
> >>> with
> >>>>> fix
> >>>>>> version RC1 I see some issues with a status other that "Fixed"[1].
> I
> >>>>> don't
> >>>>>> think it makes much sense to set a fix version for something that
> is
> >>>>>> "invalid" or "won't fix".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> WDYT?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Frank
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [1]: http://tinyurl.com/288k7s
> >>>>>>
> >>
> >
>

Re: Resolution != fixed and Fix version

[David Bernard <dw...@free.fr>]

You're right. It's a workaround, "fix version" should be labelled "planned/done version".

Frank Bille wrote:
> I got myself convinced that it was the most correct thing to not have fix
> version with something that is not fixed.
> 
> Frank
> 
> On 11/4/07, Frank Bille <fr...@apache.org> wrote:
>> But what can use that information for? You have the timestamps on the
>> issue for when someone has marked it as "won't fix", which can be used if
>> you want to reopen it.
>>
>> I think it's a mismatch between "*FIX* version" and anything other than
>> *FIXED*.
>>
>> My 2c.
>> Frank
>>
>>
>> On 11/4/07, David Bernard <dw...@free.fr> wrote:
>>> So how do you express :
>>> issue was plan for version "X"
>>> job was done for version "X" and the job is "won't fix" or "resolve"
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Frank Bille wrote:
>>>> Yes I think we use it the same way. But hopefully without setting the
>>>> "Resolution" and "Status". If you plan to fix it for a specific
>>> version the
>>>> status shouldn't be resolved or fixed and the resolution shouldn't be
>>> !=
>>>> fixed.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO,
>>>> Frank
>>>>
>>>> On 11/4/07, David Bernard <dw...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>>> In my previous job, we used JIRA's "fix version" to plan "for wich
>>>>> version" issue must be done. Because "fix version" is used to define
>>> the
>>>>> roadmap in JIRA.
>>>>> Mey be it's the same case here: a workaround.
>>>>>
>>>>> /david
>>>>>
>>>>> Frank Bille wrote:
>>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm about to write the release notes and looking through the issues
>>> with
>>>>> fix
>>>>>> version RC1 I see some issues with a status other that "Fixed"[1]. I
>>>>> don't
>>>>>> think it makes much sense to set a fix version for something that is
>>>>>> "invalid" or "won't fix".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Frank
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]: http://tinyurl.com/288k7s
>>>>>>
>>
> 

Re: Resolution != fixed and Fix version

[Frank Bille <fr...@apache.org>]

I got myself convinced that it was the most correct thing to not have fix
version with something that is not fixed.

Frank

On 11/4/07, Frank Bille <fr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> But what can use that information for? You have the timestamps on the
> issue for when someone has marked it as "won't fix", which can be used if
> you want to reopen it.
>
> I think it's a mismatch between "*FIX* version" and anything other than
> *FIXED*.
>
> My 2c.
> Frank
>
>
> On 11/4/07, David Bernard <dw...@free.fr> wrote:
> >
> > So how do you express :
> > issue was plan for version "X"
> > job was done for version "X" and the job is "won't fix" or "resolve"
> > ?
> >
> > Frank Bille wrote:
> > > Yes I think we use it the same way. But hopefully without setting the
> > > "Resolution" and "Status". If you plan to fix it for a specific
> > version the
> > > status shouldn't be resolved or fixed and the resolution shouldn't be
> > !=
> > > fixed.
> > >
> > > IMHO,
> > > Frank
> > >
> > > On 11/4/07, David Bernard <dw...@free.fr> wrote:
> > >> In my previous job, we used JIRA's "fix version" to plan "for wich
> > >> version" issue must be done. Because "fix version" is used to define
> > the
> > >> roadmap in JIRA.
> > >> Mey be it's the same case here: a workaround.
> > >>
> > >> /david
> > >>
> > >> Frank Bille wrote:
> > >>> Hey all,
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm about to write the release notes and looking through the issues
> > with
> > >> fix
> > >>> version RC1 I see some issues with a status other that "Fixed"[1]. I
> >
> > >> don't
> > >>> think it makes much sense to set a fix version for something that is
> > >>> "invalid" or "won't fix".
> > >>>
> > >>> WDYT?
> > >>>
> > >>> Frank
> > >>>
> > >>> [1]: http://tinyurl.com/288k7s
> > >>>
> > >
> >
>
>

Re: Resolution != fixed and Fix version

[Frank Bille <fr...@apache.org>]

But what can use that information for? You have the timestamps on the issue
for when someone has marked it as "won't fix", which can be used if you want
to reopen it.

I think it's a mismatch between "*FIX* version" and anything other than
*FIXED*.

My 2c.
Frank


On 11/4/07, David Bernard <dw...@free.fr> wrote:
>
> So how do you express :
> issue was plan for version "X"
> job was done for version "X" and the job is "won't fix" or "resolve"
> ?
>
> Frank Bille wrote:
> > Yes I think we use it the same way. But hopefully without setting the
> > "Resolution" and "Status". If you plan to fix it for a specific version
> the
> > status shouldn't be resolved or fixed and the resolution shouldn't be !=
> > fixed.
> >
> > IMHO,
> > Frank
> >
> > On 11/4/07, David Bernard <dw...@free.fr> wrote:
> >> In my previous job, we used JIRA's "fix version" to plan "for wich
> >> version" issue must be done. Because "fix version" is used to define
> the
> >> roadmap in JIRA.
> >> Mey be it's the same case here: a workaround.
> >>
> >> /david
> >>
> >> Frank Bille wrote:
> >>> Hey all,
> >>>
> >>> I'm about to write the release notes and looking through the issues
> with
> >> fix
> >>> version RC1 I see some issues with a status other that "Fixed"[1]. I
> >> don't
> >>> think it makes much sense to set a fix version for something that is
> >>> "invalid" or "won't fix".
> >>>
> >>> WDYT?
> >>>
> >>> Frank
> >>>
> >>> [1]: http://tinyurl.com/288k7s
> >>>
> >
>

Re: Resolution != fixed and Fix version

[David Bernard <dw...@free.fr>]

So how do you express :
issue was plan for version "X"
job was done for version "X" and the job is "won't fix" or "resolve"
?

Frank Bille wrote:
> Yes I think we use it the same way. But hopefully without setting the
> "Resolution" and "Status". If you plan to fix it for a specific version the
> status shouldn't be resolved or fixed and the resolution shouldn't be !=
> fixed.
> 
> IMHO,
> Frank
> 
> On 11/4/07, David Bernard <dw...@free.fr> wrote:
>> In my previous job, we used JIRA's "fix version" to plan "for wich
>> version" issue must be done. Because "fix version" is used to define the
>> roadmap in JIRA.
>> Mey be it's the same case here: a workaround.
>>
>> /david
>>
>> Frank Bille wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> I'm about to write the release notes and looking through the issues with
>> fix
>>> version RC1 I see some issues with a status other that "Fixed"[1]. I
>> don't
>>> think it makes much sense to set a fix version for something that is
>>> "invalid" or "won't fix".
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>> [1]: http://tinyurl.com/288k7s
>>>
> 

Re: Resolution != fixed and Fix version

[Frank Bille <fr...@apache.org>]

Yes I think we use it the same way. But hopefully without setting the
"Resolution" and "Status". If you plan to fix it for a specific version the
status shouldn't be resolved or fixed and the resolution shouldn't be !=
fixed.

IMHO,
Frank

On 11/4/07, David Bernard <dw...@free.fr> wrote:
>
> In my previous job, we used JIRA's "fix version" to plan "for wich
> version" issue must be done. Because "fix version" is used to define the
> roadmap in JIRA.
> Mey be it's the same case here: a workaround.
>
> /david
>
> Frank Bille wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I'm about to write the release notes and looking through the issues with
> fix
> > version RC1 I see some issues with a status other that "Fixed"[1]. I
> don't
> > think it makes much sense to set a fix version for something that is
> > "invalid" or "won't fix".
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > [1]: http://tinyurl.com/288k7s
> >
>

Re: Resolution != fixed and Fix version

[David Bernard <dw...@free.fr>]

In my previous job, we used JIRA's "fix version" to plan "for wich version" issue must be done. Because "fix version" is used to define the roadmap in JIRA.
Mey be it's the same case here: a workaround.

/david

Frank Bille wrote:
> Hey all,
> 
> I'm about to write the release notes and looking through the issues with fix
> version RC1 I see some issues with a status other that "Fixed"[1]. I don't
> think it makes much sense to set a fix version for something that is
> "invalid" or "won't fix".
> 
> WDYT?
> 
> Frank
> 
> [1]: http://tinyurl.com/288k7s
>