accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Vines <vi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Date Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:46:46 GMT
what about just changing them from being improvements to wishes?


On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com>wrote:

> +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