Re: 2.14.2

[Urs Liska]

Am 14.07.2011 16:18, schrieb Graham Percival:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 06:53:45AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> > On 7/14/11 6:23 AM, "Urs Liska"<address@hidden>  wrote:
> >
> > > ATM there are many issues to verify that are marked as fixed_2_14_2. So
> > > before this version is released the issues can't be verified.
> > I think that in the past we have marked it as verified when fixed in the
> > development version, and not waited for the backported version to be
> > released.  But I think the policy you are proposing is better.
> >
> > Perhaps when it's verified in one of the versions, a tag indicating that
> > should be added:  verified_2_15_5.  Then when it's been verified in both
> > versions, the verified_2_15_5 tag is removed, and status is set to Verified.
> ick.  That means that they're floating around in the "issues to
> verify" list, thereby confusing things for development.
Do they really? After all they are "issues to verify".
With this policy you can see the tag "verified_2_15_5" in the issues 
list and see it's halfway done.

But OTOH one could also argue to leave such issues completely unverified 
if you can't verify them completely.

What do you think?
Best
Urs
> Cheers,
> - Graham