There is an API in JIRA to create and update versions. Here are the docs for it for the current version we're using: https://docs.atlassian.com/jira/REST/6.3.15/#d2e3054.
Scroll down for other endpoints that might be helpful - one of them is to get the list of unreleased issues for a particular version. I've been able to use other issue-related API endpoints with my ASF JIRA login and I assume that would be true here also, but not sure about it. On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Dawid Weiss <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
