On Sep 4, 2013, at 7:06 AM, Derek Atkins <[email protected]> wrote: > John Ralls <[email protected]> writes: > >> On Sep 2, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Geert Janssens <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Monday 02 September 2013 19:48:48 Christian Stimming wrote: >>>> John Ralls <[email protected]> schrieb: >>>>> BZ has an enormous number of old target versions which makes for very >>>>> long lists when picking. I just modified all of the already-released >>>>> versions to sort to the bottom, but would anything bad happen if I >>>>> just deleted all previous releases? None of them are in use. >>>> >>>> In use by currently open bugs, you mean? Unfortunately bugzilla won't >>>> allow to delete old versions if there are closed bugs on them. I >>>> think that's why this list grows larger and larger... >>>>> Similarly I'd like to clean out the "version" list as well to include >>>>> only those versions which have bugs on them (which includes every >>>>> release from 2.2.0 on. I propose to consolidate all of the 2.0 and >>>>> 2.3 releases into 2.0.x and 2.3.x respectively. >>>>> >>>>> Any objections or concerns? >>>> >>>> All consolidation that is possible technically is fine with me. >>> >>> +1 >> >> Still feel that way after a few *thousand* bug-mails? > > I only got ~500.. > > In retrospect I'm wondering if there was a better way, like changing the > names so that they sort late in the list so that the "real" ones will be > at the top and easy to find?
That's available only for milestones. > >> It's done for now: I left 2.2.9 as a separate version because we do >> occasionally get reports against it. All of the old milestones have >> been deleted as well, and I corrected 2.5.4 to 2.5.5, which is the >> next release, and added 2.5.6. I also moved all of the open bugs in >> 2.5.x to 2.6.0 and deleted 2.5.x as a milestone--we'll never do a >> 2.5.x release. > > No, but in a decade wont someone want to merge all the 2.5.n numbers to > 2.5.x? More like in a few months... All of the versions < 1.9 had already been cleaned up, suggesting that it was considered part of the major version release process at some point. I think it should be again. Regards, John Ralls _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
