I got myself convinced that it was the most correct thing to not have fix version with something that is not fixed.
Frank On 11/4/07, Frank Bille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > > >>> > > > > > > >
