Stefano Bagnara wrote:
I'm sorry that you didn't understand my point, and that you're getting beaten
up in response. Let me try to be more clear. I am also going to reply in
three parts: one for each topic.
>Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>> Fix Version/s: Next Major (was: Trunk)
>> Please stop doing this and messing up the JIRA issues.
> I kept updated JIRA for the last year and more following this schema.
> As we did with 2.3 and trunk we agreed that everything we could have
> written for 2.3 would have been applied first in trunk and then
> backported. This way there is no issue applied to 2.3 that will not be
> in trunk.
> We created Next-Minor and Next-Major in JIRA for this very purpose, if
> we don't use this way, what should we use them for?
IMO:
1) Issues should be marked as fixed for the code in which it is fixed.
2) Unresolved issues could be marked as fixed for code in which it is
intended to be fixed. The problem with doing this is that someone
might close it, and not realize that the fix does not exist in the
branch housing that version.
Now, let's consider next-major. As far as I know, we agree that the code in
trunk will branch to be next-major. BUT, we also agree that there is code in
trunk that may not survive the pruning. For example, perhaps none of the IMAP
stuff survives to ship in next-major. We decide that in order to have a
release in some timeframe, everything else is stable enough, but not certain
other parts. Those issues would be resolved in trunk, but *not* resolved in
next-major. Do you understand now why I am making this point?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
