At times, we close issues as Won't Fix but leave the version number on
it. I can understand why someone might do that, but I think it creates more
confusion than good. For example, we publish the JIRA ticket on the Maven
site for each new version -- but without status, I think it's normal for
Sure, makes sense to remove the version.
On Jan 29, 2014, at 12:23 PM, Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org wrote:
At times, we close issues as Won't Fix but leave the version number on
it. I can understand why someone might do that, but I think it creates more
confusion than good. For example,
I agree.
/Anders (mobile)
Den 29 jan 2014 18:24 skrev Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org:
At times, we close issues as Won't Fix but leave the version number on
it. I can understand why someone might do that, but I think it creates more
confusion than good. For example, we publish the JIRA
Okay, I can go through the 3.2 tickets and do that unless someone objects.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Anders Hammar and...@hammar.net wrote:
I agree.
/Anders (mobile)
Den 29 jan 2014 18:24 skrev Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org:
At times, we close issues as Won't Fix but leave
Done. There were a few tickets also Incomplete and Not a Bug and
Cannot Reproduce statuses. Those are all conceptually the same thing as
Won't Fix in regards to not taking any development action. So 7 tickets
got moved out of the 3.2 report list, which will greatly help our users on
what work was
Thank, Paul.
On Jan 29, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org wrote:
Done. There were a few tickets also Incomplete and Not a Bug and
Cannot Reproduce statuses. Those are all conceptually the same thing as
Won't Fix in regards to not taking any development action. So 7 tickets
