You're right. It's a workaround, "fix version" should be labelled "planned/done
version".
Frank Bille wrote:
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
