[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [equinox-dev] What to do with 3.3.1 candidate bugs and milestones
|
Given bugzilla provides a "clone this bug" link, I think option #2 is the
best choice.
--
BJ Hargrave
Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM
OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance
hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx
office: +1 386 848 1781
mobile: +1 386 848 3788
Thomas Watson/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
2007-07-11 13:42
Please respond to
Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
[equinox-dev] What to do with 3.3.1 candidate bugs and milestones
Each major release the same thing happens. We start fixing bugs in HEAD
for the next major release but find a few fixes that we would like to also
release into a maintenance release. Then we have to decide what to do
with the status of the original bug report which was used to release the
fix into HEAD. I have seen this handled in two ways.
1) Leave the bug open and mark the milestone to the next maintenance
release milestone (e.g. 3.3.1) and make a comment in the bug report
stating the fix was released to HEAD. If/When the fix gets approved and
released for the maintenance release then the bug is marked as fixed;
otherwise we make a note that the fix is not going to be included in the
maintenance release and the milestone is updated to major milestone the
fix was included and marked as fixed.
2) Resolve the bug report and mark the milestone appropriate for the next
major release (e.g. 3.4 M1) and open a separate bug with a proper
milestone for the maintenance release (e.g. 3.3.1).
For the past couple of releases the Equinox team has used option #1 but
this has a few drawbacks. First of all, it gives inaccurate search
results when querying bugzilla for the list of bug fixes for the next
release milestone because code was released into the milestone but the bug
is left open and marked for a maintenance stream. Also I find it
generally confusing that the bug status does not reflect the fixed state
of the bug until we can get approval and actually release the bug into the
maintenance stream.
The second approach has its advantages because it accurately reflects the
state of the bug for a particular stream and makes for more accurate
search results for fixed bugs and milestones. But there is a risk that
the open bug against the maintenance stream will not get approved for
release and then we would have to resolve the bug as wontfix (or
something). I'm not sure that is really a problem because at least the
reason why the fix is not in the maintenance stream is recorded. Another
disadvantage is that the bugs will look like duplicates which could cause
confusion.
What are other committers preferences? How is this handled on other
teams? Is there a standard Eclipse way to handle this?
Tom
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
