Re: [DISCUSS] M2 issues - what's included and how we're tracking them

Last week I mentioned hoping to kick off an M2 release today. However some of these M2 issues are still pending, so it will wait until they are addressed. Thanks, -Dan On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Dan Smith wrote: > I changed the wiki page queries to look at fix version,

Re: [DISCUSS] M2 issues - what's included and how we're tracking them

I changed the wiki page queries to look at fix version, based on the replies on this thread. I also removed the M2 fix version from the issues suggested. Our new list of M2 issues is now down to these: GEODE-52 Remove @author tags from Java source GEODE-386 Change xsd namespace to apache

Re: [DISCUSS] M2 issues - what's included and how we're tracking them

+1 for fixed version Typical JIRA workflow would expect the Assignee to put fixed version AFTER the issue is resolved. There's another field 'Target Version' which is used for planning, however, in the interest of simplicity, we can use Fixed Version. As for M2, we already have a lot of new

Re: [DISCUSS] M2 issues - what's included and how we're tracking them

+1 fixed version... About what we need to include, depends on time-line (if any) and scope of the release (based on requirement)... If there is no time-line and there is no specific requirement, we can take balanced approach...Have a release time (approximate); identify tickets that can be

Re: [DISCUSS] M2 issues - what's included and how we're tracking them

I don’t think we have a Target Version field. Let’s try using the Fix Version for now: - When you fix a bug, mark the Fix Version based on the branch where the commit was made. Currently develop is M2. - When we want to target an issue for a release, mark the Fix Version appropriately. Then

[DISCUSS] M2 issues - what's included and how we're tracking them

Hi folks, We currently have 17 open M2 issues marked with "Sprint" M2, and 14 of those are also marked with "Fix Version" M2. Which of these issues do we actually want to try to get into M2 at this point, and what do we want to push out? As far as tracking the issues go I think we should settle

Re: [DISCUSS] M2 issues - what's included and how we're tracking them

I'll take the blame for the sub-tasks of GEODE-818 - I created those as I was working on GEODE-27 and found parts of the code that need cleaning up. But some of those tasks are rather large, so we should probably move them out. On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Nitin Lamba

Re: [DISCUSS] M2 issues - what's included and how we're tracking them

+ 1 for fix version +1 one for moving out the larger tasks and releasing sooner > On Mar 18, 2016, at 12:04 PM, Dan Smith wrote: > > I'll take the blame for the sub-tasks of GEODE-818 - I created those as I > was working on GEODE-27 and found parts of the code that need

Re: [DISCUSS] M2 issues - what's included and how we're tracking them

+1 for fix version Anthony > On Mar 17, 2016, at 8:55 PM, William Markito wrote: > > +1 to use "Fix Version". This also helps with release notes auto-generated > by JIRA. > > About the scope, I'd push for M3 at least GEODE-33 and rather release > sooner... > > >> On

Re: [DISCUSS] M2 issues - what's included and how we're tracking them

+1 On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Anthony Baker wrote: > +1 > > I would also consider: > > GEODE-818 > GEODE-835 > > Anthony > > > On Mar 18, 2016, at 3:00 PM, Dan Smith wrote: > > > > If we do that, I think we should remove a few more things from the

Re: [DISCUSS] M2 issues - what's included and how we're tracking them

It sounds like we have consensus on using the fix version to track what's in the release. I'll update the fix version on the tickets that don't have it and change the query for the wiki page. I think there is some consensus for pushing out the subtasks GEODE-818, so I'll update those to not be in