From:
aspectj-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:aspectj-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Colyer
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 10:01 PM
To: aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx;
ajdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
The bugzilla help for "target milestone"
says:
'For
open bugs this field indicates the milestone the bug is planned to be fixed in.
For bugs marked as RESOLVED with resolution FIXED this field indicates the
milestone the bug was actually fixed in. '
So
this is clearly bugzilla's architected way of doing this, It's a great idea
though to start using this field - we have sometimes been lax about tracking
this in AJDT and it makes preparing the release notes etc. very hard. Looking
at the bugzilla setup for JDT (useful to mirror) they have:
Versions:
...
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1
2.1.1
3.0
Target
Milestones:
...
2.0
M1
...
2.0
M6
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1
M1
...
2.1
MX
2.1
RC1
2.1
RC2
2.1.1
3.0
M1
...
3.0
M5
etc.
For
AspectJ we have versions:
1.0.6
1.1.0
1.1.1
unspecified
and
no defined milestones
For
AJDT we have no defined versions or milestones.
To
get additional versions and milestones added, we send a request to
webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxx. It's worth a quick discussion about what we would like
before we do that.
Considering
only the AspectJ project for the moment, we should probably add:
versions:
1.2
target
milestones:
1.1.1
RC1
1.1.1
1.2
M1
1.2
M2
1.2
M3
1.2
RC1
1.2
RC2
(in
the absence of a milestone plan being laid out for 1.2, this should be plenty
to cover us for now - trying to strike a balance between asking for updates
every 5 minutes and creating too many unused target milestones). Note that this
will also enable us to track feature requests etc. as 'enhancement' bugs and
use the target milestone to record our plan for when they will be included (or
use version unspecified if we haven't commited them to a plan yet).
AJDT
is slighty more complex.
The
current released version is 1.1.3, and we're working on 1.1.4. It's confusing
that the AspectJ and AJDT version numbers are so close and yet have different
meanings. We have to rev at least the service number every time we put out a
release in order for the Live Update to pick up and install the new version.
For the 1.1.x stream I think we have no choice but to leave things as they are.
I'm open to suggestions as to how best to handle this for the 1.2 stream...
We
should clearly ask for at least versions 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 to be created, and
target milestones 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 also.
--
Adrian
Adrian_Colyer@xxxxxxxxxx
|
|
Wes Isberg
<wes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent
by: aspectj-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
30/07/2003 19:58
Please
respond to aspectj-dev
|
To: "aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx"
<aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc:
Subject: [aspectj-dev]
reporting fix delivery version
|
I'd
like some query I could embed in a URL for users to say, "Here are
all the bugs we fixed for the 1.1.1 release."
In our old bug tracker, we had a convention of
using
FixedIn: {version}
In bugzilla, "target milestone" might
work; are these values defined by
an administrator? With it, we could do a query
like "compiler bugs fixed
in the 1.1.1 release". (btw, the
"version" in the bug should be the one
the bug was found in.)
So:
- Should we adopt a convention of including
"fixin-{version}" in the fix
comment, as a shortcut for "fix available in
version {version}"?
- Or does someone over there want to populate the
target milestones?
Wes
_______________________________________________
aspectj-dev mailing list
aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-dev
