The field I changed is called 'fix-for' as in 'we should fix it for'. There is a separate field to mark what version the bug was reported against. AFAIK, there is no 'is fixed in'; that information in implied by having a bug marked as 'fixed' or 'closed' and being marked 'fix-for' a particular version.
In other words, if the bug is fixed and is in a particular version of the roadmap, you know what version it was "fixed in". While the issue is open, you know what version we are planning to fix it in. Does that make sense? > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 9:45 PM > To: MyFaces Development > Subject: Re: Plan for 1.1.2? > > 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 Now it's been archived and the next versions (1.1.3, which 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 >
