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 Sat, 19 Apr 2014 19:51:11 GMT
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?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>

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