[cle-release-team] JIRA Version Maintenance

Matthew Jones matthew at longsight.com
Mon Dec 3 12:15:46 PST 2012 

I'm personally confused by the duality of the field and the special
conditions that need to be met one way or another that change the value,
especially with us maintaining multiple previous branches. Though perhaps
others aren't as confused. I don't know how often jira is updated (probably
only once a year) so keeping the language pack updated wouldn't be too much
trouble. In either case, I think the description of the field should
probably be updated either way even if we stick to a dual valued Fix
Version to something like "Targeted/Actual Fix Version/s" to indicate that
it could be differently depending on the conditions.


On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Matthew Jones <matthew at longsight.com> wrote:

> I posted this to the meeting for the release call next week. I don't
> remember discussing this and only 1-2 people actually use it like this. In
> general the only people who set the fix version are the people on the
> release team setting the actual fix version. The one or two people who were
> previously using it as a targeted fix version aren't doing it any longer.
> We used the tag of 291triage for items targeted for the 2.9.1 release. I
> think the issue is that even though a ticket is "Resolved->Fixed" it
> doesn't mean it's going to actually be in the release until it's
> "Verified->Fixed" or "Closed->Fixed". (Meaning it passed QA and it was
> merged into the appropriate branches)
>
> So what this means is that the only fixes really in a release are the ones
> that pass the filter "Fix Version=<Specific Version> AND (Status = Verified
> or Status = Closed) and Resolution = Fixed". Everything in a past release
> that matches the version but not the other criteria was just a targeted fix
> version that needs to be cleaned up (or changed to another future version?)
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Steve Swinsburg <steve.swinsburg at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Seems that the first comment on the Atlassian Jira issue is likely why it
>> was closed as won't fix. The field can be used in various ways and
>> depending on its state (which is either fixed or not fixed), the meaning
>> becomes clear:
>>
>>
>> https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRA-22225?focusedCommentId=208932&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-208932
>>
>> When I send an issue to development, I set the fix-for version as the
>> target ("I would like it to be fixed in this version"). While an issue is
>> unresolved (i.e. "Open"), the field can simply always be interpreted as a
>> future/target fix-for version.
>>
>> However, once a developer fixes an issue, only he/she knows exactly which
>> branch or code base the fix is actually being committed to. So, as soon as
>> the issue's resolution is set (i.e. "Fixed"), the meaning of the field
>> changes to a past/fixed in version.
>>
>> It's really quite simple. Unresolved issues show the fix-for version as
>> meaning targeted to be fixed in that version, and resolved issues show the
>> fix-for version as meaning fixed in that version. Since an issue can only
>> be resolved or unresolve, but not both, the duality of the meaning of that
>> field is not confusing at all and makes maintenance of issues so much
>> simpler.
>>
>>
>> I thought we discussed this issue a while back and it was fine to use the
>> fields in this way.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Steve
>>
>> On 03/12/2012, at 10:37 AM, Steve Swinsburg <steve.swinsburg at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Well I always use the Fix Version as both an intended fix version and
>> actual fix version. I dont find it confusing at all. There is a separate
>> field called 'Resolution' so if you use them in conjunction there is no
>> issue.
>>
>> Fix Version: 2.9.1, Resolution: Unresolved - we want to fix it in 2.9.1
>> but its not done yet. Fee free to fix it.
>> Fix Version: 2.9.1, Resolution: Fixed - its done in 2.9.1, please test.
>> Fix Version: 2.9.1, Resolution: Closed - its done in 2.9.1, its tested,
>> we are happy.
>>
>> There are thousands of issues. For someone to be able to group all issues
>> that they want to address for a particular version it is nigh on impossible.
>>
>> The labels that we are currently using are too arbitrary IMO. I could
>> create a label '291fix' or '2.9.1fix' and they will be completely separate.
>>
>> There used to be a field 'Target Version' (or mays thats just on a local
>> Jira instance), which is what you mention in your last sentence and if you
>> want to separate out the fields, that is the way to go since it is a locked
>> list of versions that you need to choose from.
>>
>> cheers,
>> S
>>
>>
>> On 01/12/2012, at 2:53 AM, Matthew Jones <matthew at longsight.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree Jean-Francois, the fix versions is ambiguous. This was suggested
>> on this jira ticket https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRA-22225
>>
>> The people in the core group treat the "Fix Version/s" field as being
>> "Actual Fix Version/s" and should only be set by a branch manager or a
>> developer who commits to trunk can set it as 2.10. If we notice that
>> someone else has used this as an "Intended Fix Version/s" then I'll remove
>> it and email them personally saying what the intention of this field is.
>> For 2.9.1, we've used a label of 291triage as the workflow for Intended Fix
>> Version.
>>
>> A little more reading lead me to seeing that we *could* download the
>> translation pack, update the field "Fix Version/s" to something clearer,
>> upload the pack and pick it as the default (
>> https://translations.atlassian.com/). This would have to be done for
>> every JIRA upgrade though, and probably take 15-30 minutes. Perhaps this
>> would be worthwhile if it reduces confusion?
>>
>> Additionally, rather than using the label, I we could create a custom
>> version picker field where we could put in "Planned Fix Version/s". It
>> looks like this was considered at one time and actually implemented in a
>> few projects (Assignments2 and Gradebook2) but never in the CLE project. I
>> think this is a good idea to do both of these things?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Jean-Francois Leveque <
>> jean-francois.leveque at upmc.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> I have the feeling that there's sometimes a confusion between intended
>>> fix version and actual fix version in this field.
>>>
>>> I would prefer actual fix versions because they're less confusing and
>>> you wouldn't have to check other fields.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> J-F
>>>
>>> On 30/11/2012 14:54, Neal Caidin wrote:
>>> > Okay, maybe I'll try deletes next time instead of merges and see if
>>> that works better. I get the sense that the fixVersion is not used
>>> consistently, but I'm not sure.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Neal
>>> >
>>> > On Nov 29, 2012, at 6:57 PM, Beth Kirschner<bkirschn at umich.edu>
>>>  wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hi Neal,
>>> >>
>>> >>    Comments below...
>>> >>
>>> >> - Beth
>>> >>
>>> >> On Nov 27, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Neal Caidin wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Summary
>>> >>> --------------------
>>> >>> Done, mostly.  All 2.9.0 alpha, beta, and rc versions merged into
>>> 2.9.0 and some cleanup per Matt's cleanup list (see below).
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Notes
>>> >>> ---------------
>>> >>>             * Side affect of merge is that there are over 800 issues
>>> for which at least one affectedVersion is 2.9.0 and at least one fixVersion
>>> is 2.9.0. Query : affectedVersion = "2.9.0" and fixVersion = "2.9.0"
>>> >>>             * Only affected SAK, SAM, and KNL .
>>> >>>             * wrt Resolved/Open/Awaiting issues having fix version
>>> unset,I may check with the Samigo team because they may be using the
>>> fixVersion in a slightly different way than the CLE release team overall.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Questions
>>> >>> -----------------
>>> >>>             * I don't see a way to bulk change the fixVersion in
>>> Jira. For those Jira admins out there, am I missing something? Many fields
>>> showed, but not fixVersion.
>>> >> If you delete a version, JIRA will offer you the option to bulk
>>> change all open JIRAs with an affectedVersion or fixVersion set to the soon
>>> to be deleted version. You're given the option of changing the version or
>>> leaving it blank. These are two separate questions, so you can change the
>>> affectedVersion to 2.9.0, and change the fixedVersion to nothing (which is
>>> what I'd suggest).
>>> >>
>>> >>>             * Is it preferable to have an empty fixVersion or "2.10
>>> [tentative]" ?  There are some issues that I'm hoping we will get into
>>> 2.9.2, and setting to "2.10 [tentative]" fix version seems wrong. On the
>>> other hand, we are only setting the fixVersion for the version in which the
>>> Jira is actually fixed, but maybe "2.10 [tentative] is a good place holder?
>>> >>>
>>> >> I think it's preferable to have an empty fixVersion -- we generally
>>> don't fill in that field until it's actually fixed. That makes querying
>>> easier, and it's also one less thing to change (and change again) as
>>> releases move forward.
>>> >>
>>> >>> Thanks,
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Neal Caidin
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Sakai CLE Community Coordinator
>>> >>> nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org
>>> >>> Skype: nealkdin
>>> >>> AIM: ncaidin at aol.com
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Nov 19, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Matthew Jones<matthew at longsight.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> I'm good with this.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Cleaning up the intermediary tags was also something I kept up on
>>> in the past:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> - All Verified or Resolved issues that *were* merged should be
>>> closed
>>> >>>> - All Resolved issues that were not merged (often because they
>>> weren't verified) should either be moved to the next release or have the
>>> fix version unset
>>> >>>> - All Open or Awaiting review issues should either have the fix
>>> version unset or moved to the next version
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Essentially the final release should just be all closed issues, so
>>> this is a decent amount of cleanup effort.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Beth Kirschner<bkirschn at umich.edu>
>>>  wrote:
>>> >>>> Hi Neal,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>    One thing that Anthony has done in the past, following a
>>> release, was to remove all the JIRA alpha, beta&  release-candidate tags,
>>> and consolidate them into one 2.9.0 release. When you delete a version in
>>> JIRA, it offers you the option to change the deleted version to another
>>> version (e.g. 2.9.0). I think we should continue doing this so that the
>>> version list is less cluttered. Let me know if you'd like some off-line
>>> help on how to do this. Does anyone else think we should _not_ continue
>>> with this practice?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> - Beth
>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>> cle-release-team mailing list
>>> >>>> cle-release-team at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>> >>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cle-release-team
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> cle-release-team mailing list
>>> >>> cle-release-team at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>> >>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cle-release-team
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > cle-release-team mailing list
>>> > cle-release-team at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>> > http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cle-release-team
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jean-François Lévêque
>>> Responsable technique Sakai
>>> Université Pierre et Marie Curie
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jean-Francois Leveque
>>> University Pierre and Marie Curie
>>> France
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cle-release-team mailing list
>>> cle-release-team at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cle-release-team
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cle-release-team mailing list
>> cle-release-team at collab.sakaiproject.org
>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cle-release-team
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/cle-release-team/attachments/20121203/dde3d39d/attachment-0006.html

More information about the cle-release-team mailing list