I don't think it can be automated -- it'd require those few manual clicks in Jira. I am not a Jira expert though, perhaps it has an API that does make it scriptable.
Dawid On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Erick Erickson <[email protected]> wrote: > Dawid: > > So can we automate this somehow? It's still extra work for the RM and > if it could become a one-liner addition to the release process maybe > we can make it easier. > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Dawid Weiss <[email protected]> wrote: >> It's not really about wanting to tag it 6.x... It's something I got >> used to very much and something that helps (me) manage which >> branch(es) a given issue has been applied to. When 6.x tag is much >> like "next release cut from 6.x". When doing a release 6.[next] I'd >> grep for 6.x and bulk-add 6.[next] to all issues currently having 6.x, >> then remove 6.x from them (so that they have a constant fix-for, no >> branch included anymore). >> >> This process isn't the only one possible and I've had some discussions >> about alternative workflows. I didn't manage to convince my >> conversation partners and they failed to convince me, so I think it's >> a matter of personal preference. >> >> The ultimate reference is the changes.txt file anyway (?). >> >> Dawid >> >> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Christine, >>> >>> Wow, that's fantastic. You can also pass a --grep argument to git directly. >>> >>> Another problem that just occurred to me though, is that we might need to >>> make updates to CHANGES files too. I'm not sure how to automate the check >>> for that, since the format can be pretty messy. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Christine Poerschke (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON) >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Everyone, >>>> >>>> Perhaps a little more context would help get us all on the same page re: >>>> the "to 6.x or to not 6.x" tag question. >>>> >>>> === "to 6.x" tag === >>>> >>>> So, some of us (myself included) for SOLR issues used to tag FixVersion >>>> 6.x since the commit was to branch_6x and (at least myself) assumed that >>>> when branch_6_7 is cut from branch_6x then the process would somehow >>>> magically turn 6.x tags into 6.7 tags, and any subsequently added 6.x tags >>>> become 6.8 in future etc. >>>> >>>> The 6.x to 6.7 transition would be an extra part of the release process >>>> and if/since it isn't actually a part of the process then it's >>>> retrospectively really really tedious to resolve 6.x to the correct >>>> 6.something tag. >>>> >>>> === "to not 6.x" tag === >>>> >>>> An alternative is always tag to a specific (future) version i.e. to _not_ >>>> 6.x tag anything and to let the released/unreleased categorisation take >>>> care >>>> of the already-released vs. scheduled-to-be-released difference. >>>> >>>> === where we are now === >>>> >>>> There are still some tickets tagged to 6.x and people looking at the >>>> version dropdown choices will see 6.x as an existing choice. If/When no >>>> tickets are tagged to 6.x anymore then the 6.x choice could be removed from >>>> the dropdown choices leaving only specific versions to choose from. >>>> >>>> Having said all that, turning existing 6.x tagging into specific versions >>>> is tedious but not totally impossible, I did a few yesterday using simple >>>> git grep lookups: >>>> >>>> what=LUCENE-NNNN >>>> for version in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ; do >>>> echo branch_6_$version >>>> git log --decorate --oneline --graph origin/branch_6_$version | grep $what >>>> done >>>> >>>> Hope that helps? What do people think? >>>> >>>> Christine >>>> >>>> From: [email protected] At: 05/25/17 14:08:37 >>>> To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], >>>> [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: Strange Solr JIRA versions (Lucene too!) >>>> >>>> Lucene devs, lets get on the same page about this issue. >>>> >>>> Dawid seems to _want_ to use 6.x >>>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7841?focusedCommentId=16024639&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-16024639 >>>> Christine and I are the only ones to have commented about this pertaining >>>> to LUCENE JIRA issues. Lets have this conversation here, not on >>>> LUCENE-7841. >>>> >>>> ~ David >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:28 AM David Smiley <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Aha; this problem is a little more than a nuisance... it seems to be why >>>>> most of these issues are marked Resolved and not Closed as well. The RM's >>>>> release process is to search for JIRA issues with a fix version of the >>>>> release version (i.e. 6.6 NOT 6.x). Issues that do not have a real >>>>> version >>>>> then fall through the cracks and remain in a "Resolved" limbo/ambiguity: >>>>> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20LUCENE%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%206.x%20ORDER%20BY%20fixVersion%20ASC%2C%20assignee%20ASC >>>>> And thus it's unclear to users browsing these issues in JIRA for which >>>>> version the issue was released in. >>>>> >>>>> ~ David >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:16 AM David Smiley <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems this issue applies to Lucene too, and it's more widespread (79 >>>>>> issues): >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20LUCENE%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(6.x%2C%20branch_6x) >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 9:37 AM Cassandra Targett >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I noticed these the other day also, and had an email half-wrote that I >>>>>>> intended to finish up today. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To start, JIRA unfortunately makes this really easy to make a mess of >>>>>>> - if you can create or edit an issue, you can just pop in a new value >>>>>>> that gets added to the list of open versions. Editing an issue is open >>>>>>> to lots of folks - committers, contributors, the reporter of an issue. >>>>>>> So, we have high potential for this to be an ongoing problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But, since only committers can commit patches and are thus the usual >>>>>>> resolvers of an issue, committers either aren't paying enough >>>>>>> attention to that field when they resolve an issue or there is >>>>>>> confusion/difference of understanding about what that field is >>>>>>> supposed to mean. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are currently 49 issues for Solr that have these "non-standard" >>>>>>> versions [1]. Some date back before the most recent 6.5.0 release, >>>>>>> which means there are issues fixed in 6.4 and 6.5 (at least) which >>>>>>> don't say so in JIRA. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This could be really problematic going forward. We need to agree that >>>>>>> when issues are resolved, the fixVersion field is reliable and means >>>>>>> the same thing to everyone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IMO we should always use the *next* version that makes sense at that >>>>>>> time. So, an issue resolved today would be "6.6" and "master (7.0)". >>>>>>> Others may have different points of view on how we should do this, but >>>>>>> I think traditionally it's been the way I suggest, so if there is >>>>>>> change desired there, we should discuss it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Side note: I know there is some doubt today that 6.6 will ever exist. >>>>>>> However, it will be a lot easier to go through JIRA to remove "6.6" >>>>>>> from issues that aren't in 6.x than it will be to review >>>>>>> issue-by-issue everything that says "6x" or "6.x" or "branch_6x", >>>>>>> etc., and figure out when it was actually released. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cassandra >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] Query for JIRA issues: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20SOLR%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(6.x%2C%206x%2C%20branch_6x) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 1:33 AM, Mark Miller <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > Who keeps adding strange JIRA release versions? I've cleaned up >>>>>>> > strange ones >>>>>>> > in the past and they keep coming back. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Why do we have branch6x, 6x and 6.x and trunk? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Even if we wanted more than 6.1, 6.2, 6.2.1 and master (7.0), and I >>>>>>> > don't >>>>>>> > think we do, who keeps adding these duplicates? Let's come to some >>>>>>> > sanity >>>>>>> > here. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > - Mark >>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>> > - Mark >>>>>>> > about.me/markrmiller >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker >>>>>> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: >>>>>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker >>>>> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: >>>>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker >>>> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: >>>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
