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 Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:50:36 GMT
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?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>

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