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 2008/09/03 14:34:34 UTC
Marking 2.0.10 issues also 2.1.x and 3.0
Are there any objections to marking the 2.0.10 issues also for 2.1 and
3.0? I can do a batch update with no email notice. Let me know. I am
in no hurry to make the change. If I see no objections by the weekend,
I'll do it to keep good issue tracking.
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Marking 2.0.10 issues also 2.1.x and 3.0
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
Awesome. Thanks John!
Paul
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 7:47 PM, John Casey <jd...@commonjava.org> wrote:
> I updated the 2.0.10 issues today, so I *think* it's all up to date.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Marking 2.0.10 issues also 2.1.x and 3.0
Posted by John Casey <jd...@commonjava.org>.
I updated the 2.0.10 issues today, so I *think* it's all up to date.
Brett Porter wrote:
> Is the +1 to Paul or to Wendy? :)
>
> What I understand the current situation to be:
> * things fixed in both 2.0.10 and 2.1.0 are marked in both
> * these do not automatically apply to 3.0 since it's now to hard to
> merge a lot of them so it'll be brought to backwards compat via ITs
> * in the event something can be merged to 3.0 it will be marked with both.
>
> That seems fine to me. The release notes issue Wendy raised annoys me
> too, but we can workaround that, or strip them off later. If 2.1.0 is
> out before 2.0.10 it makes a lot of sense to include them in both
> release notes.
>
> John, as far as your concerned, JIRA is up to date in this regard now,
> right?
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
> On 04/09/2008, at 12:48 AM, John Casey wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Wendy Smoak wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Are there any objections to marking the 2.0.10 issues also for 2.1 and
>>>> 3.0? I can do a batch update with no email notice. Let me know. I am
>>>> in no hurry to make the change. If I see no objections by the weekend,
>>>> I'll do it to keep good issue tracking.
>>> Isn't it implied that anything fixed in a prior version _stays_ fixed
>>> in a later one?
>>> I don't think I want to see everything from 2.0.10 show up again in
>>> the release notes for 2.1 and 3.0, I only want to see what's new.
>>
>> --
>> John Casey
>> Developer, PMC Member - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org)
>> Blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/buildchimp/
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@apache.org
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
--
John Casey
Developer, PMC Member - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org)
Blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/buildchimp/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Marking 2.0.10 issues also 2.1.x and 3.0
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
I think it's proper issue management to label all issues for their
respective fixes. Otherwise, what are you going to do when you have
issues just for one branch? Some issues are also just for trunk and
not backported.
I think we should have a rule: if you commit to multiple places, the
issue should show the Fix Version for those places.
I thought there was general agreement on this issue -- admittedly
worded differently -- for 2.0.9? If I can find the thread, I'll send
the link.
Paul
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> Is the +1 to Paul or to Wendy? :)
>
> What I understand the current situation to be:
> * things fixed in both 2.0.10 and 2.1.0 are marked in both
> * these do not automatically apply to 3.0 since it's now to hard to merge a
> lot of them so it'll be brought to backwards compat via ITs
> * in the event something can be merged to 3.0 it will be marked with both.
>
> That seems fine to me. The release notes issue Wendy raised annoys me too,
> but we can workaround that, or strip them off later. If 2.1.0 is out before
> 2.0.10 it makes a lot of sense to include them in both release notes.
>
> John, as far as your concerned, JIRA is up to date in this regard now,
> right?
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
> On 04/09/2008, at 12:48 AM, John Casey wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Wendy Smoak wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Are there any objections to marking the 2.0.10 issues also for 2.1 and
>>>> 3.0? I can do a batch update with no email notice. Let me know. I am
>>>> in no hurry to make the change. If I see no objections by the weekend,
>>>> I'll do it to keep good issue tracking.
>>>
>>> Isn't it implied that anything fixed in a prior version _stays_ fixed
>>> in a later one?
>>> I don't think I want to see everything from 2.0.10 show up again in
>>> the release notes for 2.1 and 3.0, I only want to see what's new.
>>
>> --
>> John Casey
>> Developer, PMC Member - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org)
>> Blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/buildchimp/
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@apache.org
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Marking 2.0.10 issues also 2.1.x and 3.0
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
Is the +1 to Paul or to Wendy? :)
What I understand the current situation to be:
* things fixed in both 2.0.10 and 2.1.0 are marked in both
* these do not automatically apply to 3.0 since it's now to hard to
merge a lot of them so it'll be brought to backwards compat via ITs
* in the event something can be merged to 3.0 it will be marked with
both.
That seems fine to me. The release notes issue Wendy raised annoys me
too, but we can workaround that, or strip them off later. If 2.1.0 is
out before 2.0.10 it makes a lot of sense to include them in both
release notes.
John, as far as your concerned, JIRA is up to date in this regard now,
right?
Cheers,
Brett
On 04/09/2008, at 12:48 AM, John Casey wrote:
> +1
>
> Wendy Smoak wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Paul Benedict
>> <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Are there any objections to marking the 2.0.10 issues also for 2.1
>>> and
>>> 3.0? I can do a batch update with no email notice. Let me know. I am
>>> in no hurry to make the change. If I see no objections by the
>>> weekend,
>>> I'll do it to keep good issue tracking.
>> Isn't it implied that anything fixed in a prior version _stays_ fixed
>> in a later one?
>> I don't think I want to see everything from 2.0.10 show up again in
>> the release notes for 2.1 and 3.0, I only want to see what's new.
>
> --
> John Casey
> Developer, PMC Member - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org)
> Blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/buildchimp/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Marking 2.0.10 issues also 2.1.x and 3.0
Posted by John Casey <jd...@commonjava.org>.
+1
Wendy Smoak wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Are there any objections to marking the 2.0.10 issues also for 2.1 and
>> 3.0? I can do a batch update with no email notice. Let me know. I am
>> in no hurry to make the change. If I see no objections by the weekend,
>> I'll do it to keep good issue tracking.
>
> Isn't it implied that anything fixed in a prior version _stays_ fixed
> in a later one?
>
> I don't think I want to see everything from 2.0.10 show up again in
> the release notes for 2.1 and 3.0, I only want to see what's new.
>
--
John Casey
Developer, PMC Member - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org)
Blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/buildchimp/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Marking 2.0.10 issues also 2.1.x and 3.0
Posted by Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
> Are there any objections to marking the 2.0.10 issues also for 2.1 and
> 3.0? I can do a batch update with no email notice. Let me know. I am
> in no hurry to make the change. If I see no objections by the weekend,
> I'll do it to keep good issue tracking.
Isn't it implied that anything fixed in a prior version _stays_ fixed
in a later one?
I don't think I want to see everything from 2.0.10 show up again in
the release notes for 2.1 and 3.0, I only want to see what's new.
--
Wendy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org