accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Corey Nolet <cjno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Date Mon, 21 Apr 2014 17:04:07 GMT
+1
On Apr 21, 2014 11:47 AM, "John Vines" <vines@apache.org> wrote:

> 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