4519 was my mistake ... shouldn't have checked in the code ... and then probably made things worse by changing the fixVersion. I could change the Jira back as I gather it is OK to have code checked-in that's associated with a non 2.0 Jira
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik <[email protected]> wrote: > I meant to say that no new JIRAs should be added against a release > candidate being voted on. > > The 4019 was meant for 2.0.0 I think. The JIRA reporter should decide to > defer this or vote RC4 down > to include the fix in RC5. > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Marshall Schor <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think new Jiras are fine to be added, but they shouldn't be marked as > > "fixed > > in" 2.0.0 - it should be for a later release? > > > > If 4019 isn't in this release, please update the Jira to remove the fixed > > in > > 2.0.0... > > > > If that isn't the issue, more investigation needed :-). > > > > -Marshall > > > > On 7/20/2015 4:23 PM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik wrote: > > > I just checked my build directory and issuesFixed shows 4516 at the top > > of > > > the report. Unfortunately, the 4519 was added post RC4. We should not > be > > > adding new JIRAs while an RC is being voted on. > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Marshall Schor <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> issues-fixed missing 4516 and 4519? > > >> > > >> -Marshall > > >> > > > > >
