migration version message is confusing

[hohwille]

I see this behaviour on my current IDEasy project:

$ ide status
Updates are available for the settings repository. If you want to apply the latest changes, call "ide update"
IDE_ROOT is set to C:\Users\joerg\projects
IDE_HOME is set to C:\Users\joerg\projects\mmm
You are online.
Your settings are not up-to-date, please run 'ide update'.
Your project is on IDEasy version 2025.01.001-beta and needs an update to version 2025.02.001-beta!
Please run 'ide update' to migrate your project
Your version of IDEasy is 2025.03.002 which is the latest released version.
Your operating system is windows(10.0)@x64 [Windows 11@amd64]

$ ide -v
2025.03.002

The message

Your project is on IDEasy version 2025.01.001-beta and needs an update to version 2025.02.001-beta!

is IMHO very confusing for end-users.
I understand that 2025.01.001-beta is the IDEasy version the IDE-project has been created or last updated with.
Further, I guess the 2025.02.001-beta is the next version for which a migration is available.
However, an end-user that does not have such insights into IDEasy might think he has IDEasy beta still installed or at least does not understand where these versions come from.

My suggestion:

1. We should omit the next migration version (here the part to version 2025.02.001-beta) from the log message
2. We should improve the message to something like Your project <project-name> was created or last updated with IDEasy version <version> and needs an update.

Comes from here:

IDEasy/cli/src/main/java/com/devonfw/tools/ide/commandlet/StatusCommandlet.java

Line 132 in 6f34d3c

"Your project is on IDEasy version {} and needs an update to version {}!\nPlease run 'ide update' to migrate your project",

[jan-vcapgemini]

We need to check if this is still relevant, might be a duplicate of: #1255

[hohwille]

The message comes from a private method logMigrationStatus() from StatusCommandlet but it seems that this method is not used any more at all.
Therefore the actual issue cannot be reproduced any more.
However, having dead code in private methods is also not great so I am not yet closing this issue.