I've been thinking this all through and I guess my question is with the synchronization between Jira and svn. The fact that Resolved/Fixed is usually tied to a commit shows we all think they are related: we're all using Jira to reflect svn to some extent, right?
I'd like to be able to look at Jira and know if a fix for an issue has been committed to a particular branch. I had thought that's what Fix Version/s meant, though I see that's not exactly it. And an observation: shouldn't everything currently in Resolved have a FVs that includes 2.1? I can see optionally adding 2.0.1, too, but since it's already committed to trunk, it's obviously planned to be fixed in 2.1, right? What about adding a Committed field? Looking at the docs, it should be possible. I'm actually more interested in that field then I am in FVs, if not simply because it's a lot less ambiguous and subjective. I don't need to know the release process to interpret it. I think it could facilitate some things, should we ever want to. I wonder how the RM handles making patch releases. If it were me, tasked with making a 2.0.1 release (should that be decided) and it was decided to have a lot of the patches in, my to-do list would be all those issues that have FV with 2.0.1 and did not have Committed with 2.0.1. Then I'd update the Jira issues as I did the merges. If it's really a simple release, it might be overkill but as soon as it gets a little complicated, it seems like the tracking would be really handy. Overkill? If a description of how we are supposed to be using AVs and FVs had existed before I started, I'd probably never have even thought about it this much. But having thought of it, I'm actually still in favor of it. I really like the idea of being able to go to Jira and know which branches had fixes committed on them. ? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
