accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Date Mon, 21 Apr 2014 05:07:16 GMT
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

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