This patch would add the following bug tracker tasks to PEP 101 (Doing
Python Releases 101):
 - Add version X.Y+1 as when version X.Y enters alpha.

 - Change non-doc RFEs to version X.Y+1 when version X.Y enters beta.

 - Update 'behavior' issues from versions that your release make
   unsupported to the next supported version.

 - Review open issues, as this might find lurking showstopper bugs,
   besides reminding people to fix the easy ones they forgot about.

These are the changes mentioned in
http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue283

However, I'm tempted to update PEP 3 (Guidelines for Handling Bug
Reports) instead, adding these (and the blocker <-> deferred flips) as
tracker janitors' tasks.

What do you think?

Would these tasks, whereever documented, be entirely manual or partly
automated?  I just fixed new feature request #5975 which originally
selected 2.5,2.6,3.0.  It would be nice if the tracker automatically
rejected such invalid selections and selected 2.7/3.2 instead.

I of course agree that these tasks should be listed somewhere, but have
no opinion on which PEP, if not both.

We sure could have helpers for updating RFEs and bugs to correct
versions. They could be scripts for bulk updating and/or per-issue UI
shortcuts for Developers. I'll open a meta-tracker RFE for this.

Correcting user reports and requests is also possible, but I'd like to
work on help tooltips and maybe a bug report/RFE wizard first: I'm
afraid that on the absence of good explanations/tips, such corrections
might annoy and discourage reporters. Anyway, I"ll open a ticket for
this too :)

Thanks for the feedback!

Applied in r72756.