So everyone is on board for this? Since we've already begun the release process for 3.0.5, I think it might be best to start the new process with 3.0.6 and 3.1.5, thoughts?
Brian On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:30 AM, James Peach <jamespe...@me.com> wrote: > On Apr 27, 2012, at 6:34 AM, Igor Galić wrote: > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> Hi all, > >> > >> James suggested a while ago that we change how we deal with > >> backported bugs. > >> I agree with him that our system of closing, reopening, reassigning > >> etc. is > >> not only complicated, but difficult to follow. > >> > >> His suggestion was simply to clone a bug that has been approved for > >> backport, and mark that for the backport version. Jira supports this > >> I'm > >> fairly certain. This would make the original bug kept closed after > >> committed to trunk, and the cloned bug is used exclusive for the > >> backport(s). > >> > >> The one objection I've heard is that this could duplicate the number > >> of bugs > >> that we have, but the per release statistics would not change in any > >> way. > >> > >> What do you guys think? I'm personally +1 on this idea. > > > > Which bug number goes into CHANGES then? > > I suggest that CHANGES in the backport should have the bug number of the > clone (ie. the bug that was used to do that backporting). > > > > >> > >> -- Leif > > > > i > > > > > > -- > > Igor Galić > > > > Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883 > > Mail: i.ga...@brainsware.org > > URL: http://brainsware.org/ > > GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE > > > >
