I think the current setup is sufficient. Fix version + not resolved == planned for, Fix version + resolved == fixed in
Introducing more permutations is going to confuse the hell out of us even more. Martijn On 11/4/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > jip i think that jira should have 2 fields in stead of the one "fix version" > > something like: > > "planned version"/"target version" > and > "Fixed version" (which is the current "fix version") > > johan > > > On 11/4/07, David Bernard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > >>>>>> > > >> > > > > > > -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/
