Bug targets

[John Ralls]

On Sep 4, 2013, at 7:06 AM, Derek Atkins <warlord at MIT.EDU> wrote:

> John Ralls <jralls at ceridwen.us> writes:
> 
>> On Sep 2, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Geert Janssens <janssens-geert at telenet.be> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Monday 02 September 2013 19:48:48 Christian Stimming wrote:
>>>> John Ralls <jralls at ceridwen.us> schrieb:
>>>>> BZ has an enormous number of old target versions which makes for very
>>>>> long lists when picking. I just modified all of the already-released
>>>>> versions to sort to the bottom, but would anything bad happen if I
>>>>> just deleted all previous releases? None of them are in use.
>>>> 
>>>> In use by currently open bugs, you mean? Unfortunately bugzilla won't
>>>> allow to delete old versions if there are closed bugs on them. I
>>>> think that's why this list grows larger and larger...
>>>>> Similarly I'd like to clean out the "version" list as well to include
>>>>> only those versions which have bugs on them (which includes every
>>>>> release from 2.2.0 on. I propose to consolidate all of the 2.0 and
>>>>> 2.3 releases into 2.0.x and 2.3.x respectively.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Any objections or concerns?
>>>> 
>>>> All consolidation that is possible technically is fine with me.
>>> 
>>> +1
>> 
>> Still feel that way after a few *thousand* bug-mails?
> 
> I only got ~500..
> 
> In retrospect I'm wondering if there was a better way, like changing the
> names so that they sort late in the list so that the "real" ones will be
> at the top and easy to find?

That's available only for milestones.

> 
>> It's done for now: I left 2.2.9 as a separate version because we do
>> occasionally get reports against it. All of the old milestones have
>> been deleted as well, and I corrected 2.5.4 to 2.5.5, which is the
>> next release, and added 2.5.6. I also moved all of the open bugs in
>> 2.5.x to 2.6.0 and deleted 2.5.x as a milestone--we'll never do a
>> 2.5.x release.
> 
> No, but in a decade wont someone want to merge all the 2.5.n numbers to
> 2.5.x?

More like in a few months...

All of the versions < 1.9 had already been cleaned up, suggesting that it was
considered part of the major version release process at some point. I think it
should be again.

Regards,
John Ralls