Preventing unnecessary JIRA version managing

[Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>]

All,

I noticed that the next set of unresolved tickets are always assigned a
version number. This leads to unnecessary maintenance when we have to burn
a point release (i.e., you have to re-assign them to the next release) or
it's just time for a new point release. There's really no point in having
unresolved issues queued up. I kind of feel bad for Jason as he has to keep
pushing them forward.

I think we should just put all unresolved tickets in the 3.x backlog, and,
as they are resolved, assign them an official version number.

WDYT?

Cheers,
Paul

Re: Preventing unnecessary JIRA version managing

[Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>]

But I think we should stop queuing up the next version with an official
number. Right now 3.3.6 exists with all unfinished items. My proposal is
just to leave that as 3.3.x so other JIRA versions can be renamed as
necessary (3.3.5 => 3.3.6).


Cheers,
Paul

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>
wrote:

> No, but that would be even easier.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Do we not just rename the version number?
>>
>> On 22 July 2015 at 15:55, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > All,
>> >
>> > I noticed that the next set of unresolved tickets are always assigned a
>> > version number. This leads to unnecessary maintenance when we have to
>> burn
>> > a point release (i.e., you have to re-assign them to the next release)
>> or
>> > it's just time for a new point release. There's really no point in
>> having
>> > unresolved issues queued up. I kind of feel bad for Jason as he has to
>> keep
>> > pushing them forward.
>> >
>> > I think we should just put all unresolved tickets in the 3.x backlog,
>> and,
>> > as they are resolved, assign them an official version number.
>> >
>> > WDYT?
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Paul
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: Preventing unnecessary JIRA version managing

[Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>]

No, but that would be even easier.


Cheers,
Paul

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:

> Do we not just rename the version number?
>
> On 22 July 2015 at 15:55, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > I noticed that the next set of unresolved tickets are always assigned a
> > version number. This leads to unnecessary maintenance when we have to
> burn
> > a point release (i.e., you have to re-assign them to the next release) or
> > it's just time for a new point release. There's really no point in having
> > unresolved issues queued up. I kind of feel bad for Jason as he has to
> keep
> > pushing them forward.
> >
> > I think we should just put all unresolved tickets in the 3.x backlog,
> and,
> > as they are resolved, assign them an official version number.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Paul
> >
>

Re: Preventing unnecessary JIRA version managing

[Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org>]

That's what I do in such case.
Den 22 jul 2015 17:56 skrev "Stephen Connolly" <
stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com>:

> Do we not just rename the version number?
>
> On 22 July 2015 at 15:55, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > I noticed that the next set of unresolved tickets are always assigned a
> > version number. This leads to unnecessary maintenance when we have to
> burn
> > a point release (i.e., you have to re-assign them to the next release) or
> > it's just time for a new point release. There's really no point in having
> > unresolved issues queued up. I kind of feel bad for Jason as he has to
> keep
> > pushing them forward.
> >
> > I think we should just put all unresolved tickets in the 3.x backlog,
> and,
> > as they are resolved, assign them an official version number.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Paul
> >
>

Re: Preventing unnecessary JIRA version managing

[Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>]

Do we not just rename the version number?

On 22 July 2015 at 15:55, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:

> All,
>
> I noticed that the next set of unresolved tickets are always assigned a
> version number. This leads to unnecessary maintenance when we have to burn
> a point release (i.e., you have to re-assign them to the next release) or
> it's just time for a new point release. There's really no point in having
> unresolved issues queued up. I kind of feel bad for Jason as he has to keep
> pushing them forward.
>
> I think we should just put all unresolved tickets in the 3.x backlog, and,
> as they are resolved, assign them an official version number.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>