[sakai2-tcc] Cleaning up versions in Jira

[Noah Botimer]

I guess maybe I've lost track of the problem statement. What ill effects are we seeking to eliminate?

I can certainly understand the .x argument in that there is always some version that a problem or fix applies to, even if tentatively. But what else?

(I'm just having trouble reconciling what seems to be an involved set of process suggestions with some known problem.)

Thanks,
-Noah

On Jul 7, 2011, at 4:53 AM, Jean-Francois Leveque wrote:

> I have no clue how we can archive/unarchive versions, and trust more 
> knowledgeable people to give use needed information.
> 
> I suggest we change 2) to 4) slightly.
> 
> 2) We get review volunteers to propose changes needed for a .x version. 
> I expect we would find lots of issues where we only have to remove the 
> .x version from Fix or Affects and some that need investigation.
> 3) When review volunteers do not have any more time to review, we get 
> update volunteer who define a set of changes from the review they will 
> do and start the process when we have volunteers for all changes
> 4) When all reviewed changes are done, we archive the .x version
> 
> What do you think ?
> 
> J-F
> 
> On 07/07/2011 10:33, David Horwitz wrote:
>> OK following an IM conversation with Jean-Francois I'm going to propose
>> the following course of action. The aim is to get remove the non
>> versions for future use and leave the state of jiras as accurate as
>> possible.
>> 
>> The course of action:
>> 
>> 1) We archive all the versions
>> 2) We unarchive one version at a time starting with 2.8.x for a fixed
>> period (I think 48hours)
>> 3) During that time a concerted effort is made to fix the jira's using
>> these versions
>> 4) At the end of the period the version is archived and we accept that
>> versions thus tagged are not going to be fixed
>> 5) Return to 2 and continue with the next version
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> D
>> 
>> On 07/07/2011 10:15 AM, Jean-Francois Leveque wrote:
>>> -1 (partial) Before we archive 2.7.x and 2.8.x, I think a cleanup is
>>> needed or we're gonna keep sending an imprecise message to the community.
>>> 
>>> With a few volunteers, we can clean this up quickly.
>>> 
>>> I've started to work on the Fix For with 2.8.x (count of 20). There are
>>> a few that still need checking when they were fixed to add the right
>>> version:
>>> SAK-19891
>>> SAK-19689
>>> SAK-19494
>>> SAK-14860
>>> 
>>> Affects with 2.8.x count: 42
>>> Fix For with 2.7.x count: 23
>>> Affects with 2.7.x count: 111
>>> 
>>> There is some overlap, the total count with Fix For or Affects with
>>> 2.7.x or 2.8.x is 169.
>>> 
>>> What do you think? Wanna volunteer a few minutes on this?
>>> 
>>> +1 for all versions that are not maintained, .x or not.
>>> 
>>> J-F
>>> 
>>> On 06/07/2011 15:34, David Horwitz wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> 
>>>> As discussed in LA we suggested getting rid of the x versions, so unless
>>>> I hear otherwise I will archive the following versions:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> - 2.6.x
>>>> -2.7.x
>>>> -2.8.x
>>>> 
>>>> Archiving means that issues that where tagged as affecting or fixed in
>>>> those versions will still display this, however those versions will no
>>>> longer appear in the dropdowns.
>>>> 
>>>> I would also suggest we archive the 2.5 versions:
>>>> 2.5.0
>>>> 2.5.1
>>>> 2.5.2
>>>> 2.5.3
>>>> 2.5.4
>>>> 2.5.5
>>>> 2.5.6
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Any objections?
>>>> 
>>>> Regards
>>>> 
>>>> David
> _______________________________________________
> sakai2-tcc mailing list
> sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
> 
>