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 17:07:33 GMT
+1 I thought "proposal" would be good enough to convey the message. "Wont
fix" is confusing and I could see possible contributors being starred away
by it.
On Apr 21, 2014 1:04 PM, cjnolet@gmail.com wrote:

> +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