accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Havanki <bhava...@clouderagovt.com>
Subject Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Date Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:26:13 GMT
+1 to using "Won't Fix". "Won't" can mean "won't anytime soon". Labeling as
"someday" or "wishlist" or something sounds great to me. The tickets remain
in JIRA, so they can be resurrected if we change our minds or if an eager
contributor comes along. Nothing is lost.

I'll look into getting our ASF wiki space established if no one is doing so
already. This isn't the only time it's been proposed for use lately.

Thanks to David and everybody doing the spring cleaning.


On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:

> What do we want Jira to represent? I prefer it when projects use Jira as a
> work queue. If a feature request hasn't gotten interest in 2 years, it's
> very unlikely it will suddenly jump to the top of our priority list.
>
> I'm all for suggesting that requestors work on a patch and offering
> feedback to guide them. But if there isn't someone willing to do the work,
> the ticket is effectively wontfix. We should make sure there's a comment
> that explains that we're open to a feature if someone comes forward to do
> the work. We could also add a label so it's easier for the interested to
> find them.
>
> There is a cost to keeping these defunct tickets around. Old, untended
> tickets discourage new participants. They make us look unresponsive and
> they represent noise for those trying to look at what's going on.
>
> We do need a place for ideas we find interesting but don't have resources
> to handle yet. Many projects request that feature requests start on the
> mailing list to gauge interest. We could just do that, though the mail
> archive is neither super easy to search nor a convenient point of
> reference.
>
> Maybe this would be a good use of our ASF wiki space?
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Corey Nolet <cjnolet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree. Are those tickets really getting in the way? Maybe they could be
> > labeled differently to separate them from tech debt, bugs, and other
> active
> > features?
> > On Apr 19, 2014 3:51 PM, "John Vines" <vines@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Won't fix isn't accurate though. We're not saying we will reject work
> on
> > > them, they're just not a high priority.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Resolving them as "Won't Fix" seems valid to me, if the fact that a
> > > > ticket is open helps us track/manage outstanding work. (The obvious
> > > > question, then, is "does it help in some way?"). They can always be
> > > > re-opened if we decide it's worth doing.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 1:05 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > > Just because they're old doesn't make them invalid. They're just
> at a
> > > > lower
> > > > > priority. Closing them for the sake of closing them seems like a
> bad
> > > > idea.
> > > > >
> > > > > But if they're actually invalid now, that's an entirely different
> > > notion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity.
> > > > > On Apr 19, 2014 12:42 PM, "David Medinets" <
> david.medinets@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> ACCUMULO-483 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-483
> >,
> > > for
> > > > >> example, involves creating a purge locality utility. However,
> there
> > > have
> > > > >> been no comments since Oct 2012. If the feature has not risen
in
> > > > priority
> > > > >> since then, how will it become more important in the future.
> > Perhaps a
> > > > >> 'good ideas' page or 'roadmap' page could be added to
> > > > >> http://accumulo.apache.org/? I don't see a benefit to keeping
> these
> > > old
> > > > >> tickets.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Corey Nolet <cjnolet@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Some of these tickets still look like very valid
> > feature/integration
> > > > >> > requests that would still be reasonable to have.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > See ACCUMULO-74, ACCUMULO-143, ACCUMULO-136, ACCUMULO-211,
> > > > ACCUMULO-483,
> > > > >> > ACCUMULO-490, ACCUMULO-508
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Mike Drob <mdrob@mdrob.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Deleting tickets is a no-no, but flagging them is certainly
> > fine.
> > > > >> > > On Apr 19, 2014 12:03 AM, "David Medinets" <
> > > > david.medinets@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > Opps. Sorry, I did my filtering badly. There are
68 tickets
> > > over 2
> > > > >> > years
> > > > >> > > > old.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-18?jql=project%20%3D%20ACCUMULO%20AND%20status%20in%20%28Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened%2C%20%22Patch%20Available%22%29%20AND%20created%20%3C%3D%20-104w%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20ASC
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:01 AM, David Medinets
> > > > >> > > > <david.medinets@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-551?jql=project%20%3D%20ACCUMULO%20AND%20created%20%3C%3D%20-104w%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Is there a technique we can use to curate
old tickets?
> Would
> > > > anyone
> > > > >> > > mind
> > > > >> > > > > if I review them and nominate tickets for
closure? I can
> > add a
> > > > >> > message
> > > > >> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > delete any tickets that don't provoke a response.
How
> useful
> > > are
> > > > >> > > tickets
> > > > >> > > > > that are two years old?
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sean
>



-- 
// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message