Milestone ordering is wrong in products/distros pages

I think the bug is asking that they be sorted by expected completion date, which sounds reasonable to me.

Alternatively you could sort by a version-number-sorting algorithm (e.g. 0.8.1 < 0.9)

It looks like the ordering may be correct in the dropdown when targetting a bug, but it's incorrect when shown in the portlet. Or at least this is so for bzr's 3 milestones.

The case of Ubuntu using codenames rather than numbers does indicate they should be sorted by date, not by name.

They seem to be sorted by date now. Can somebody confirm?

* Guilherme Salgado

| They seem to be sorted by date now. Can somebody confirm?

No, they are now sorted by «expected» date, see
https://beta.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+milestones:

#
# herd-3
Expected for 2007-02-01
For The Feisty Fawn
# herd-4
Expected for 2007-02-15
For The Feisty Fawn
# herd-5
Expected for 2007-03-01
For The Feisty Fawn
# 7.04-beta
Expected for 2007-03-22
For The Feisty Fawn
# ubuntu-7.04
Expected for 2007-04-01
For The Feisty Fawn
# dapper-updates
For The Dapper Drake
# edgy-updates
For The Edgy Eft
# herd-2
For The Feisty Fawn
# later
For The Edgy Eft

(note the herd-2 in there).

I guess the current state is ok and I could just add a date to herd-2.

--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 11:38:39AM -0000, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Guilherme Salgado
>
> | They seem to be sorted by date now. Can somebody confirm?
>
> No, they are now sorted by «expected» date, see
> https://beta.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+milestones:
>

Yeah, expected date is what I meant. I'd think it's better than sorting by
the date it was created, no?

* Guilherme Salgado

| Yeah, expected date is what I meant. I'd think it's better than sorting by
| the date it was created, no?

Yes, I guess that makes sense.

--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

I'm reopening this, feel free to close if you think this is wrong. Milestones are still not being sorted correctly. For instance see:

https://edge.launchpad.net/awn/+milestones

They get listed in this order:
        0.2.10
 0.2.6
 0.2.8
 0.3
 0.2.4
 0.2

Confirmed, it's sorting milestones with no expected date first.

In LP 2.0 the sorting is in reverse-chronological order, or so it appears. It might just a bad search call.

  2008-12-17 2.1.12
 2008-11-19 2.1.11
 2008-10-15 2.1.10
 2008-09-17 2.1.9
 2008-08-20 2.1.8

This problem is largely a symptom of bad user data. The code tries to guess the sorting based on name instead of using the "Date Targeted" (dateexpected). This may be fixable in during the work unify series, milestones, and releases.

Fixed in RF7836.

Milestones for a series used to appear sorted in ascending order, as in:
0.1, 0.2, 0.3, etc...

Now they appear in reverse order:
0.3, 0.2, 0.1.

I think the change happened in the last week, but I only noticed it now. This seems to have affected every single project on Launchpad. Is this a planned feature or some kind of bug?

Your observation is correct. Last week the fix to order by milestones by pseudo-numeric descending order was landed. Newer milestones are more important than older ones because old ones become inactive over time.

Milestones are now sorted by descending date expected. Milestones that don't have a date expected are treated as being in the future, and they are sorted by descending milestone name (version).