Bug's to be fixed in next version

[Dar Scott]

On Sunday, February 8, 2004, at 01:51 PM, Ken Ray wrote:

> I don't think you're viewing the bugs correctly. Take a look at the
> email from Mark Chia called "Bug Database Changes Completed" - the
> "Target Version" popup is to be used for the version that a bug *was
> resolved in*, not the one where the bug *will be resolved*.

I read Mark's mail as saying the "Tqrget Version" as being set by the 
assignee, in particular, when the bug is fixed.  The meaning of 
"target" is key in that case.  At an internal interim release, the bug 
is set as CLOSED.  I am assuming that the meaning of "target" is 
dropped when a CLOSED bug is associated with a release that has 
actually been released, that is, at that point the meaning is some 
particular release not a future one or a hoped-for one that the word 
"target" might imply.

That is, the meaning of "target version' depends on 1) whether the 
status is RESOLVED/FIXED or CLOSED/FIXED and 2) (I think) whether the 
specified version has been released.

Even so, there does seem to be a backlog of work to get the database up 
to where it should be.  In particular there are a large number of fixed 
bugs with a target of "---".  I feel confident that these will be 
resolved and eventually bugzilla will be in sync.

Some time ago my father-in-law ran across some bug in Netscape.  I 
checked on the mozilla fixes to get a clue and found that there were 
two people fixing bugs each putting back the bug the other fixed in 
order to fix his own.  That is unlikely on the RunRev team, but I think 
the workflow closing step would minimize the impact of such a conflict.

Dar Scott