Re: Bug taget and version

> On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 17:16 -0600, bugzilla-daemon_at_squid-cache.org wrote:
>
>> Amos Jeffries <squid3_at_treenet.co.nz> changed:
>>
>> What |Removed |Added
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Target Milestone|--- |3.2
>> Version|3.HEAD |3.0
>>
>> --- Comment #2 from Amos Jeffries <squid3_at_treenet.co.nz> 2008-10-15
>> 17:16:52 ---
>> marking from version 3.0+, should be included in the 3.2 feature parity
>> objective.
>
> Hi Amos,
>
> I have noticed that you have changed targets and versions of many
> bug reports recently, and I am not sure I understand the new scheme we
> should be using for those fields (e.g., I have no idea what the above
> quoted comment means). Please explain the new rules or point me to the
> right place.
>

No scheme change that I'm aware of. I just went through 3.HEAD and
unspecified lists and checked the fields matched what I understood them to
mean.

Version I understand to be the release where the bug was first detected.

I've checked the comment text to see what versions are mentioned (ignoring
side-bugs if they pop in). If any specific version was detailed, I listed
it as present in that release and later.

I've changed the open bugs against 3.HEAD to 3.1, because that is now the
oldest code where they are known to exist and it will make things clearer
which bugs are 'new' in 3.HEAD/3.2 and which are 'old' in 3.HEAD/3.1. I
left the closed ones alone.

Target I understand to be the release where we intend for the bug to be
closed or any fix needs to be back-ported down to. I've been using that as
one of the guiding hints to my maintenance back-ports.

Amos
Received on Sun Oct 19 2008 - 23:44:31 MDT