The fact that certain issues have a Fix Version of 3.0.17.Final is somewhat random. Probably the Fix Version was set by the reporter and doesn't mean much. I only set a Fix Version when I start to work on an issue, or otherwise strongly believe it will get done soon. A more important filter, I think, is anything with an Affects Version of 3.0.1.Final - 3.0.16.Final. Anything else doesn't affect, or isn't know to affect, Resteasy 3. On 05/12/2016 05:42 PM, Alessio Soldano wrote: > Folks, > I'd like to organize a bit the work for the future month or such on > RESTEasy. > I've created 3.1.0.Beta1 version on jira and started setting that as > target for some issues / feature requests. > Please take some time to look at jira, review what's there, self-assign > / un-assign jiras and schedule them for 3.1.0.Beta1. We should try to > come up with a reasonable payload for ~ 1 month of development. > Also note there are currently a lot of jiras scheduled for 3.0.17.Final, > but it does not look very likely that they'll all be solved in few days > (that is when we'll release 3.0.17.Final). So please update/reschedule them. > With more people actively working on the project we should try to use > JIRA properly for tracking progress on releases. > > Thanks > Alessio > > P.S. the comment to use on commits so that they can be automatically > linked to jiras (I still have to ask for the integration to be enabled > though, will do that soon) is "[RESTEASY-XYZ] blah blah", including > square brackets. > -- My company's smarter than your company (unless you work for Red Hat) _______________________________________________ resteasy-dev mailing list resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev

Thanks Ron. I usually expected the reporter to specify the "affects version". If it's not there, I usually assume he's using the latest available release. We should at a given point go and check if old jiras with no affect version are still valid against current master.

Thanks Alessio Il 13/05/2016 00:33, Ron Sigal ha scritto: > > I just edited most of the issues with Fix Version 3.0.17, removing > the Fix Version and, when there was no Affects Version >= 3.0.Final, > adding Affects Version 3.0.16.Final. This way, they don't have any > special status relative to other issues with no Fix Version. > > > On 05/12/2016 06:23 PM, Ron Sigal wrote: >> >> The fact that certain issues have a Fix Version of 3.0.17.Final is >> somewhat random. Probably the Fix Version was set by the reporter >> and doesn't mean much. I only set a Fix Version when I start to work >> on an issue, or otherwise strongly believe it will get done soon. A >> more important filter, I think, is anything with an Affects Version >> of 3.0.1.Final - 3.0.16.Final. Anything else doesn't affect, or >> isn't know to affect, Resteasy 3. >> >> >> On 05/12/2016 05:42 PM, Alessio Soldano wrote: >>> Folks, >>> I'd like to organize a bit the work for the future month or such on >>> RESTEasy. >>> I've created 3.1.0.Beta1 version on jira and started setting that as >>> target for some issues / feature requests. >>> Please take some time to look at jira, review what's there, self-assign >>> / un-assign jiras and schedule them for 3.1.0.Beta1. We should try to >>> come up with a reasonable payload for ~ 1 month of development. >>> Also note there are currently a lot of jiras scheduled for 3.0.17.Final, >>> but it does not look very likely that they'll all be solved in few days >>> (that is when we'll release 3.0.17.Final). So please update/reschedule them. >>> With more people actively working on the project we should try to use >>> JIRA properly for tracking progress on releases. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Alessio >>> >>> P.S. the comment to use on commits so that they can be automatically >>> linked to jiras (I still have to ask for the integration to be enabled >>> though, will do that soon) is "[RESTEASY-XYZ] blah blah", including >>> square brackets. >>> >> >> -- >> My company's smarter than your company (unless you work for Red Hat) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> resteasy-dev mailing list >> resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev > > -- > My company's smarter than your company (unless you work for Red Hat) > > > _______________________________________________ > resteasy-dev mailing list > resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev -- Alessio Soldano Web Service Lead, JBoss _______________________________________________ resteasy-dev mailing list resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev

When we mark a release in JIRA as "released", there will be a option that will move all the unsolved issues to next candidate release(select from dropdown list). So I guess that's the reason there are many issues set to "3.0.17.Final", which was inherited from older releases. JIRA also allows us to clear the 'Fix Version' of the unsolved issues during each release, but I'm afraid that will lose the (maybe) important info. -- Weinan Li / JBoss > On May 13, 2016, at 5:42 AM, Alessio Soldano <asoldano(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > Folks, > I'd like to organize a bit the work for the future month or such on > RESTEasy. > I've created 3.1.0.Beta1 version on jira and started setting that as > target for some issues / feature requests. > Please take some time to look at jira, review what's there, self-assign > / un-assign jiras and schedule them for 3.1.0.Beta1. We should try to > come up with a reasonable payload for ~ 1 month of development. > Also note there are currently a lot of jiras scheduled for 3.0.17.Final, > but it does not look very likely that they'll all be solved in few days > (that is when we'll release 3.0.17.Final). So please update/reschedule them. > With more people actively working on the project we should try to use > JIRA properly for tracking progress on releases. > > Thanks > Alessio > > P.S. the comment to use on commits so that they can be automatically > linked to jiras (I still have to ask for the integration to be enabled > though, will do that soon) is "[RESTEASY-XYZ] blah blah", including > square brackets. > > -- > Alessio Soldano > Web Service Lead, JBoss > > _______________________________________________ > resteasy-dev mailing list > resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev

-- Weinan Li / JBoss > On May 13, 2016, at 5:18 PM, Alessio Soldano <asoldano(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > Yes, I expected this situation to be a consequence of having carried over stuff from former releases. I just want to clean up things a bit and have a clear and reasonable set of issues assigned to the next release. > I agree with Ron on the "Fix Version" having to be set only if we really believe a jira will we worked for that version. Otherwise simply clean up the field (perhaps set by the reporter). > Next sub-task is to decide how to deal with the "Wanted but unscheduled" version. I don't use it much. Maybe we can just leave the 'Fix Version' blank for such kind of issues :-) Not sure whether Ron uses it or not.

> Do we really need that? > Cheers > Alessio > > > Il 13/05/2016 05:26, Weinan Li ha scritto: >> When we mark a release in JIRA as "released", there will be a option that will move all the unsolved issues to next candidate release(select from dropdown list). So I guess that's the reason there are many issues set to "3.0.17.Final", which was inherited from older releases. JIRA also allows us to clear the 'Fix Version' of the unsolved issues during each release, but I'm afraid that will lose the (maybe) important info. >> >> -- >> Weinan Li / JBoss >> >>> On May 13, 2016, at 5:42 AM, Alessio Soldano <asoldano(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> Folks, >>> I'd like to organize a bit the work for the future month or such on >>> RESTEasy. >>> I've created 3.1.0.Beta1 version on jira and started setting that as >>> target for some issues / feature requests. >>> Please take some time to look at jira, review what's there, self-assign >>> / un-assign jiras and schedule them for 3.1.0.Beta1. We should try to >>> come up with a reasonable payload for ~ 1 month of development. >>> Also note there are currently a lot of jiras scheduled for 3.0.17.Final, >>> but it does not look very likely that they'll all be solved in few days >>> (that is when we'll release 3.0.17.Final). So please update/reschedule them. >>> With more people actively working on the project we should try to use >>> JIRA properly for tracking progress on releases. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Alessio >>> >>> P.S. the comment to use on commits so that they can be automatically >>> linked to jiras (I still have to ask for the integration to be enabled >>> though, will do that soon) is "[RESTEASY-XYZ] blah blah", including >>> square brackets. >>> >>> -- >>> Alessio Soldano >>> Web Service Lead, JBoss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> resteasy-dev mailing list >>> resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev > > -- > Alessio Soldano > Web Service Lead, JBoss >

I'm in the process of working through "unassigned" bug issues. At the least, I investigate and respond with questions. At best, I fix something. Either way, in most cases I assign the issue to myself. Currently, there are 44 open Bug issues with Affects Version >= 3.0.Final that aren't assigned to me: > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/RESTEASY-1353?filter=12326909&jql=pro... I will keep working on them with the ultimate goal of eliminating them. For the ones where I pose a question and put them into "waiting" mode, I think I'll impose a timeout of maybe a couple of months, and close them if there's no response. In the future, I propose that we make the Default Assignee "Unassigned", which removes any possible ambiguity. -Happy Weekend -- My company's smarter than your company (unless you work for Red Hat) _______________________________________________ resteasy-dev mailing list resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev

Il 14/05/2016 20:15, Ron Sigal ha scritto: > > In the future, I propose that we make the Default Assignee > "Unassigned", which removes any possible ambiguity. I was thinking about the same few days ago, so I've just changed the default assignee to "unassigned". Cheers Alessio -- Alessio Soldano Web Service Lead, JBoss _______________________________________________ resteasy-dev mailing list resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev

I remember now there were a couple of other things I wanted to mention. 1. There are two groups of unassigned bug issues I've been temporarily avoiding: a. Several related to HttpClient. I've just been waiting to see how far the results of RESTEASY-975 get us.

b. Several related to Spring. Bill used to do the Spring stuff, which was fine with me since I don't know a whole lot about it. If anyone is familiar with Spring and wants to take them, I won't complain. ;-) Otherwise, I'll refresh my memory about Spring and look at them after 3.0.17.Final.

2. In my previous discussion about open issues, I didn't mean to imply that I was claiming all of the unassigned issues.

Indeed, working through bugs (real or imagined) is certainly a good way to get familiar with code. So ... anybody is welcome to anything. ;-)