It's all about the answers!

Ask a question

Should I check "A release is scheduled for this iteration" for backlog iterations too?

Andrew Codrington (17733135) | asked Jul 09 '13, 2:15 p.m.
I've seen this phrase in the docs discussed in earlier questions here in the forums:
To enable the iteration for an iteration plan, click A release is scheduled for this iteration. Only iterations with scheduled releases are eligible for iteration plans.
It is very clear that it needs to be checked for eligibility for iteration plans.

How about Backlog Plans, or Release Plans?
I've always checked this for my backlog iterations, but thought I'd ask in case there's some special handling somewhere I missed.

If it really is required for all plan types, maybe the wording could change to something like "Deselect to hide from use in Plans"

Accepted answer

permanent link
Ralph Schoon (62.9k33645) | answered Jul 09 '13, 2:23 p.m.
 I think yes. See for what this flag means.
Andrew Codrington selected this answer as the correct answer

One other answer

permanent link
Guido Schneider (3.4k1486115) | answered Jul 09 '13, 4:18 p.m.
edited Jul 09 '13, 4:19 p.m.
You should check the flag for all Iterations where you want to have workitems planned for. This means normally also a backlog iteration.

The text is misleading. I have opened a defect against that long time. See:

There was also a bug, which disabled the possibility to create a plan with the EclipseClient based on an Iteration where this flag is not set. Wis the Webclient it was always possible. This I discussed intensiv on defect:
Based on this discussion, the UI to create a plan in V.4.0.3 was extended to select if you want to be able to create plans for such iterations.

There are or were other defects in this area. When you set the Planned For value for a workitem, it should not be possible to select an Iteration where the flag is not set. This was not consquently implemented at all places (Plan InLineEditor, Plan Row Menu, WorkItem Editor, Query Inline Editor,...). This i reported in defect:
I hope this is now all correct in V.4.0.3. I had not the chance to test all possibilities.

Your answer

Register or to post your answer.