But what can use that information for? You have the timestamps on the issue for when someone has marked it as "won't fix", which can be used if you want to reopen it.
I think it's a mismatch between "*FIX* version" and anything other than *FIXED*. My 2c. Frank On 11/4/07, David Bernard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So how do you express : > issue was plan for version "X" > job was done for version "X" and the job is "won't fix" or "resolve" > ? > > Frank Bille wrote: > > Yes I think we use it the same way. But hopefully without setting the > > "Resolution" and "Status". If you plan to fix it for a specific version > the > > status shouldn't be resolved or fixed and the resolution shouldn't be != > > fixed. > > > > IMHO, > > Frank > > > > On 11/4/07, David Bernard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In my previous job, we used JIRA's "fix version" to plan "for wich > >> version" issue must be done. Because "fix version" is used to define > the > >> roadmap in JIRA. > >> Mey be it's the same case here: a workaround. > >> > >> /david > >> > >> Frank Bille wrote: > >>> Hey all, > >>> > >>> I'm about to write the release notes and looking through the issues > with > >> fix > >>> version RC1 I see some issues with a status other that "Fixed"[1]. I > >> don't > >>> think it makes much sense to set a fix version for something that is > >>> "invalid" or "won't fix". > >>> > >>> WDYT? > >>> > >>> Frank > >>> > >>> [1]: http://tinyurl.com/288k7s > >>> > > >
