[Numpy-discussion] Changing milestones on tickets

[Ralf Gommers]

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Pauli Virtanen <pav at iki.fi> wrote:

> Tue, 31 May 2011 11:44:15 -0500, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> [clip]
> >> I find very commendable to strive for consistency, mind you. I'm just
> >> not not very comfortable with the idea of modifying old records a
> >> posteriori to adjust to new policies...
> >
> > I was under the impression this already was the policy, and the only
> > reason it wasn't followed and the existing bugs hadn't been updated was
> > the fact that trac has no nice mass-editing functionality. In
> > particular, the 'roadmap' view (a prominent link at the top of the trac)
> > suggests this by showing the bugs fixed for every unfinished milestone,
> > and doing this required that someone insert custom trac markup into the
> > milestones. If there is a bug policy written up somewhere it should
> > probably be linked from main trac wiki page.
>
> As far as I know, there simply has been no clear policy to the use
> of the milestone field. But at least I have the same idea as you here
> about how it should be used --- tickets should initially go into
> Unscheduled, and from there moved into a milestone in which they
> are (or are planned to be) fixed.
>
> The reason why so many bugs went into 2.0.0 is that this was the default
> value earlier, and most of the time the milestone was not updated when
> the tickets were closed.
>
> Anyway, it makes sense to have closed bugs appear under the milestone
> they were actually fixed in. I see no harm in changing this, and cleaning
> it up is a good thing.
>
> It is helpful to have this cleaned up, thanks Mark for taking the time for
this.

Ralf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20110531/2cc9d556/attachment.html>