The confusion seems to be - is this version number a: is fixed in - version number or a is reported against - version number
indeed, there should be two fields in jira to reflect this, right? regards, Martin On 11/22/05, Abrams, Howard A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think there are several points of confusion here, and I'm not sure on > whose part. > > The version number in JIRA is listed as 'fix-for', which to me meant > that is the version we plan to fix the issue in. The 'road map' lists > future versions and the issues that are planned for each. One version > does not a roadmap make. :) > > Without listing what issues we are planning on fixing in the future and > when, those who depend on MyFaces have no insight into what is going on, > and no basis to express the priority of an issue or know when to expect > a fix. My categorization of what issue was to be fixed when was meant > only as a starting point for a conversations on prioritizing the issues. > Those on the dev list could look at the two version and make reasonable > informed opinions on what should be moved when. > > But what I'm most confused about is the state of JIRA now; There was a > 'nightly' version which I numbered (because we aren't planning on fixing > those in the nightly, we're planning on fixing them in the next > version). Now it's been archived and the next versions (1.1.3, which > isn't the upcoming version) ahs been listed as nightly. I think that was > a mistake, no? I think if you meant to put things back, you would have > renamed 1.1.2 to nightly, right? > > So, after all this, we're back to the original question: Which bugs are > to be fixed before we can start to release 1.1.2? And how would a > user/developer know unless they are listed in the "Road Map"? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sean Schofield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 12:03 PM > > To: MyFaces Development > > Subject: Re: Plan for 1.1.2? > > > > OK I changed 1.1.3 back to nightly for now. I also "archived" the > > 1.1.2 release. This way users can't report issues against this > > version but the issues that Howard assigned to 1.1.2 have been > > preserved. > > > > sean > > > > On 11/21/05, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I do also think that this can create confusion if we don't go to a > > > discussion process first. We should consider which are the criteria > to > > > define which are the more important bugs to be fixed or features to > be > > > implemented for the next version (although, I recall that it was > > > decided that votes on an issue was the most important criterium). +1 > > > For changind 1.1.3 to nightly in the meanwhile... > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Bruno > > > > > > 2005/11/21, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > I also think we should get rid of the 1.1.3 version (change it > back to > > > > nightly.) This is going to cause a lot of confusion. > > > > > > > > We need to have a group dicussion on how we might change JIRA to > give > > > > better information. Perhaps a field for the "scheduled" version > which > > > > is independent of the version fixed field ... > > > > > > > > For now I say change 1.1.3 to nightly and create a 1.1.2 branch in > > > > order to minimize confusion. Someone has already asked me offlist > > > > which version to report their bug against (they were using the > nightly > > > > build but now there is 1.1.2 and 1.1.3). > > > > > > > > sean > > > > > > > > On 11/21/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Well I disagree slightly with how this is being handled. I > think we > > > > > should have created a 1.1.2 branch before getting rid of the > nightly > > > > > version. And we probably should have taken an informal poll > before > > > > > doing that. > > > > > > > > > > I agree that we should have a roadmap before 1.1.2. I agree > with > > > > > Manfred that we should release tomahawk along with the > implementation. > > > > > That should be the policy until we have a compelling reason to > do > > > > > otherwise. If anything there are more useful fixes in tomahawk > than > > > > > the implementation. > > > > > > > > > > In the meantime, without a nightly version label in JIRA and > without a > > > > > 1.1.2 branch, basically every fix that goes into SVN will be > part of > > > > > the 1.1.2 release. On the other hand, we don't want to be on > the > > > > > branch for too long either because we will have to merge down > and > > > > > people using the nightly won't be able to access the last minute > > > > > branch changes until that is done. > > > > > > > > > > At this point, the 1.1.2 JIRA changes have already been made so > I > > > > > guess we leave them alone and not add a nightly label until we > make > > > > > the branch. I suggest we branch soon but not until we all agree > that > > > > > its time for a new release. > > > > > > > > > > sean > > > > > > > > > > On 11/21/05, Abrams, Howard A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I've done a quick and dirty pass through the open issues, and > made the > > > > > > following changes: > > > > > > > > > > > > * Renamed 'Nightly' to '1.1.2' > > > > > > * Added a few seemingly very important issues to 1.1.2 > > > > > > * Left any open issues already marked for 1.1.2/nightly as-is, > > > > > > regardless of my opinion of them (in theory they should be > removed > > > > > > because non api/impl issues shouldn't hold up a release, > right?) > > > > > > * Created a new 1.1.3 version > > > > > > * Added remaining issues that looked reasonably important to > 1.1.3. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the next step is for the community to take a look and: > > > > > > * Nominate any issues that should be added to 1.1.2 or 1.1.3 > > > > > > * Nominate any issues that should be removed from 1.1.2 or > 1.1.3 > > > > > > > > > > > > Then I think we should vote on the 1.1.2 list, and if/when > approved, > > > > > > move forward with fixing the remaining issues and preparing > for a > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? Suggestions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Manfred Geiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 2:26 AM > > > > > > > To: MyFaces Development > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Plan for 1.1.2? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Howard, > > > > > > > You are now member of "myfaces-developers" group on Jira. > Can you > > > > > > > please check if this gives you enough rights? > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Manfred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2005/11/21, Abrams, Howard A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > If you're certain that issues on the custom/extended > components have > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > chance of holding up a release (other than taking > resources away > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > fixing issue in the api/impl), then you're right, there > isn't a > > > > > > need. > > > > > > > > However, I think that without a clear plan the issue is > confused. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can use the 'road map' feature of JIRA to pick > issues for > > > > > > > > each upcoming minor release. I'll volunteer to take a stab > at > > > > > > creating a > > > > > > > > 'road map' for 1.1.2, (if someone can give me any access > required). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > From: Manfred Geiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 1:05 AM > > > > > > > > > To: MyFaces Development > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Plan for 1.1.2? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, there is nothing to argue against quicker release > cycles. > > > > > > EXCEPT > > > > > > > > > the fact that a new release (not a build!) does not > emerge alone, > > > > > > ie. > > > > > > > > > cannot be fully automated. There are things like release > candidate > > > > > > > > > voting, testing (!), release notes, homepage updates, > > > > > > announcements. > > > > > > > > > Which takes time. > > > > > > > > > Sean and Bill have spent much much time in releasing so > far > > > > > > (thanks!) > > > > > > > > > and many have helped to make it as easy as possible. But > of > > > > > > course: > > > > > > > > > Any additional help is welcome! > > > > > > > > > The more volunteer helpers and testers we have, the > faster we can > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > our cycles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As Howard did mention, a release plan would be good. Any > volunteer > > > > > > who > > > > > > > > > is willing to look over the open Jira issues and > classify them? > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts about future milestones? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -0.5 from my side for releasing the API/impl separately: > > > > > > > > > There is no need IMHO. API/Impl are the most important > parts. So, > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > there really is a showstopper, this alone would > legitimate a new > > > > > > > > > release. Regardless of small bugs in one of the addons > or sub > > > > > > > > > projects. > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > Manfred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2005/11/20, Travis Reeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > > > +1 for the quicker release cycle. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Travis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/20/05, James Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure about the release plan, but +1 for a > quicker release > > > > > > > > cycle. > > > > > > > > > > > Let's not get caught up in the same slow cycle that > has > > > > > > affected > > > > > > > > > > > Struts for so long. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > James Mitchell > > > > > > > > > > > 678.910.8017 > > > > > > > > > > > Skpe: jmitchtx > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 19, 2005, at 11:19 PM, Abrams, Howard A > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a release plan for 1.1.2? It seems there > are a > > > > > > > > significant > > > > > > > > > > > > number of issues on the trunk; some of which may > not be > > > > > > marked > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > such in JIRA. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, now that we've gotten passed the TCK, moved > to SVN, > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > broken out the various sub projects, I'd like to > revisit the > > > > > > > > > > > > subject of releasing the API/impl separately from > the > > > > > > > > components. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are many of us who do not use any of the sub > projects, > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > seems silly to hold back a release of the impl due > to a bug > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > > > random fancy component. Any +1's out there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > h. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
