Versions and Target Milestones

Gregary Hendricks ghendricks at
Fri Mar 26 15:21:27 UTC 2010

>>> On 3/26/2010 at 5:20 AM, in message
<Yeednfpxb6cLBTHWnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d at>, Gervase Markham
<gerv at> wrote:
> Thinking about it, a few things bug me about the way we currently do 
> versions and target milestones. Have these ideas been thought of before? 
> Is there a position on them?
> - It seems that these fields actually are values from the same lists - 
> versions are versions in the past, and target milestones are versions in 
> the future. There would be, I think, great advantage in having a unified 
> set of "versions", some of which were marked as "released". Those marked 
> as "released" would be in the "Version" field, and those not marked as 
> "Released" would be in the "Target Milestone" field.

Novell has taken this appraoch in the integration tool used to manage products. Users enter "releases" and then mark them as already released or planned. Released versions show up in the "Versions" field while planned releases show in TM.

> One could then also have a parameter that made it so that all bugs 
> targetted at a milestone had to be retargetted before that milestone 
> could be set as Released - good for workflow. This would end the weird 
> thing of having bugs still targetted at "Target Milestones" for releases 
> which had already happened.

This would make sense but make it optional.

> - Further to the above, the naming is inconsistent. Target Milestone is 
> a name very specific to early Mozilla development. And using "Milestone" 
> and "Version" for the same thing is confusing. Would it make more sense 
> to start calling it "Target" or even "Planned Version"?

Again, this is basically the approach we have taken.


More information about the developers mailing list