Re: issue verification

[Jonas Hahnfeld]

Am Donnerstag, den 17.09.2020, 20:58 +0200 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
> What I do not yet understand is when milestones should be assigned
> to issues and MRs. So far Jonas has done this from time to time. That was
> after each release, right?

Yes, mostly so. I'm just continuing what CG previously said about the
Fixed_x.y.z labels: Closed issues should be labeled Status::Fixed and
assigned a label, now a milestone, so they can be found. Additionally,
I assign all merge requests without a milestone after Phil does a
release and I need to create a new milestone anyway. That has the
benefit that the milestone bundles all information about the changes
that went into a release, in a single place.

> Should we switch to doing this as part of the verification process?

The problem I'm seeing is that it would become harder to find the
issues to verify: Most of the time, there will be fixed issues for the
current version still in development, which cannot be verified. Making
everybody wanting to help with verification skip over the same set of
issues potentially wastes a lot of time...

Jonas

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part