At 7:01 PM -0400 20/9/06, Khalid B wrote:
One general comment here: how many issues today are in the queue against "cvs"? Some of them years old and against modules or code that no longer applies.
For those who are against a codename, I point out that if the issue is against a fixed name/version, it can immediately be seen as obsolete or worth pursuing
I think you're clutching at straws here. Sure code names are cute and entertaining, but please don't try to kid yourself or others that they would make life easier. Tagging issues with a code name will only tell you which release the issue was filed against. It could still not be immediately seen whether the issue is obsolete or worth pursuing. If you wanted to know whether the issue was obsolete you would need to test the issue against the current code and see if it's still relevant. Furthermore, having the issue filed against an obfuscated code name version which you have to go look up on a handbook page to convert back to a number would just add an extra level of frustration when dealing with old issues. If you perceive a problem with the issue tracker insofar as the actual code version an issue was filed against is missing (and I think a case still needs to be made that this really is a problem and you are proposing a valid solution), then that problem should be addressed within the project module, not by obfuscating the version numbers of the code. Personally I find the age of creation and the age of last comment a better indicator of issue obsolescence than the version it's tagged with. Issues against 4.6 might still be valid feature requests or even bug reports against HEAD. If you can build a case that issues should be tagged with the version number they were filed against then there are other solutions available. For example, when HEAD is released and a new version tag is created, all existing issues with version "cvs" should be changed to that new version. ...R.