Re: Reviewing our JIRA's

[Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>]

As a first step, I closed 30 issues that hadn’t been updated in 2 years.

project = GEODE AND issuetype = Bug AND resolution = Unresolved AND (labels in (CI, Ci, ci, Flaky, flaky) OR summary ~ ci) and updated <= -104w ORDER BY created DESC, priority DESC, updated DESC

Anthony


> On Apr 26, 2018, at 6:24 PM, Lynn Hughes-Godfrey <lh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> 
> Modifying your filter to look at jiras that haven't been updated in a year
> (vs. created in the past year) ... there are 114 to review.
> That probably means there were updates for 34 of those when they reproduced
> in CI, etc, so we wouldn't want to close those.
> 
> Looking specifically at GEODE-552 ... GEODE-640 was a duplicate of this and
> has been marked closed (use port 0 so we use next available port vs.
> default port) ... so really this one looks like a bookkeeping issue
> (GEODE-552 should be closed as a duplicate of GEODE-640).
> Same for GEODE-554 ... it is the same as GEODE-552, GEODE-640 (and also
> open).
> 
> I will probably take some more time tomorrow to look through the remaining
> 112 .... to see if I can see any reason why we shouldn't just resolve them
> now.
> I will send you more feedback then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Galen O'Sullivan <go...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> 
>> I'm for it. Less noise is a good thing, and I don't think they're likely
>> to get prioritized anyways. If we close as WONTFIX or similar, we can
>> always look back for them later if we want.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/26/18 10:39 AM, Anthony Baker wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks Lynn!
>>> 
>>> As I first step I’d like to focus on issues labeled as ‘CI’.  There are
>>> 220 open issues and 148 [1] of those have been open for > 1 year.  If I
>>> look at the metrics jobs [2, 3, 4] I see a clear mismatch between failures
>>> that are currently relevant and our JIRA backlog.  That is, a bunch of
>>> tests that used to fail don’t anymore.  Perhaps that’s because of the
>>> transition away from Jenkins or something else, but it makes it hard to
>>> figure out what is important.  GEODE-552 [5] is a good example—is this
>>> still a problem and if so is it worth doing compared to more recent issues?
>>> 
>>> So I’d like to make a radical proposal:  let’s close out all 148 of those
>>> stale CI issues.  If a test failure recurs, we can always reopen the ticket.
>>> 
>>> Why I think this is important:  I’ve noticed a few reports from users
>>> that did not get timely attention and caused frustration.  I think reducing
>>> the sheer volume of issues will help us focus on the most important issues.
>>> 
>>> Let me know what you think.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Anthony
>>> 
>>> [1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12343689&jq
>>> l=project%20%3D%20GEODE%20AND%20issuetype%20%3D%20Bug%20AND%
>>> 20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20(labels%20in%20(CI%
>>> 2C%20Ci%2C%20ci%2C%20Flaky%2C%20flaky)%20OR%20summary%20~%
>>> 20ci)%20and%20created%20%3C%3D%20%20-52w%20ORDER%20BY%
>>> 20created%20DESC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
>>> [2] https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/d
>>> evelop-metrics/jobs/GeodeDistributedTestMetrics/builds/66
>>> [3] https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/d
>>> evelop-metrics/jobs/GeodeIntegrationTestMetrics/builds/66
>>> [4] https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/d
>>> evelop-metrics/jobs/GeodeFlakyTestMetrics/builds/66
>>> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-552
>>> 
>>> On Apr 20, 2018, at 3:19 PM, Lynn Hughes-Godfrey <
>>>> lhughesgodfrey@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I can help with that.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I surfed through our JIRA backlog and cleaned up a bunch of old
>>>>> issues—primarily issues that we missed resolving when the fix was
>>>>> made.  In
>>>>> some cases I asked for help determining if the issue should be closed.
>>>>> If
>>>>> you got one of these requests please try and follow up in the next week
>>>>> or
>>>>> so and close if needed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There are a number of issues remaining that probably deserve a deeper
>>>>> review.  Some of these include:
>>>>> 
>>>>> - Bugs that have insufficient detail and can’t be reproduced
>>>>> - Tasks that may no longer be relevant
>>>>> - Ideas that are good but we may never get around to doing them
>>>>> - CI failures that no longer occur
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ideally I’d like to close out issues where appropriate to make the
>>>>> backlog
>>>>> more manageable and approachable.  Any volunteers to help with this
>>>>> effort?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anthony
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> 

Re: Reviewing our JIRA's

[Michael Stolz <ms...@pivotal.io>]

Good first step!

--
Mike Stolz
Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Lead
Mobile: +1-631-835-4771
Download the GemFire book here.
<https://content.pivotal.io/ebooks/scaling-data-services-with-pivotal-gemfire>

On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> As a first step, I closed 30 issues that hadn’t been updated in 2 years.
>
> project = GEODE AND issuetype = Bug AND resolution = Unresolved AND
> (labels in (CI, Ci, ci, Flaky, flaky) OR summary ~ ci) and updated <= -104w
> ORDER BY created DESC, priority DESC, updated DESC
>
> Anthony
>
>
> > On Apr 26, 2018, at 6:24 PM, Lynn Hughes-Godfrey <
> lhughesgodfrey@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > Modifying your filter to look at jiras that haven't been updated in a
> year
> > (vs. created in the past year) ... there are 114 to review.
> > That probably means there were updates for 34 of those when they
> reproduced
> > in CI, etc, so we wouldn't want to close those.
> >
> > Looking specifically at GEODE-552 ... GEODE-640 was a duplicate of this
> and
> > has been marked closed (use port 0 so we use next available port vs.
> > default port) ... so really this one looks like a bookkeeping issue
> > (GEODE-552 should be closed as a duplicate of GEODE-640).
> > Same for GEODE-554 ... it is the same as GEODE-552, GEODE-640 (and also
> > open).
> >
> > I will probably take some more time tomorrow to look through the
> remaining
> > 112 .... to see if I can see any reason why we shouldn't just resolve
> them
> > now.
> > I will send you more feedback then.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Galen O'Sullivan <
> gosullivan@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I'm for it. Less noise is a good thing, and I don't think they're likely
> >> to get prioritized anyways. If we close as WONTFIX or similar, we can
> >> always look back for them later if we want.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/26/18 10:39 AM, Anthony Baker wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks Lynn!
> >>>
> >>> As I first step I’d like to focus on issues labeled as ‘CI’.  There are
> >>> 220 open issues and 148 [1] of those have been open for > 1 year.  If I
> >>> look at the metrics jobs [2, 3, 4] I see a clear mismatch between
> failures
> >>> that are currently relevant and our JIRA backlog.  That is, a bunch of
> >>> tests that used to fail don’t anymore.  Perhaps that’s because of the
> >>> transition away from Jenkins or something else, but it makes it hard to
> >>> figure out what is important.  GEODE-552 [5] is a good example—is this
> >>> still a problem and if so is it worth doing compared to more recent
> issues?
> >>>
> >>> So I’d like to make a radical proposal:  let’s close out all 148 of
> those
> >>> stale CI issues.  If a test failure recurs, we can always reopen the
> ticket.
> >>>
> >>> Why I think this is important:  I’ve noticed a few reports from users
> >>> that did not get timely attention and caused frustration.  I think
> reducing
> >>> the sheer volume of issues will help us focus on the most important
> issues.
> >>>
> >>> Let me know what you think.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Anthony
> >>>
> >>> [1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12343689&jq
> >>> l=project%20%3D%20GEODE%20AND%20issuetype%20%3D%20Bug%20AND%
> >>> 20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20(labels%20in%20(CI%
> >>> 2C%20Ci%2C%20ci%2C%20Flaky%2C%20flaky)%20OR%20summary%20~%
> >>> 20ci)%20and%20created%20%3C%3D%20%20-52w%20ORDER%20BY%
> >>> 20created%20DESC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
> >>> [2] https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/d
> >>> evelop-metrics/jobs/GeodeDistributedTestMetrics/builds/66
> >>> [3] https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/d
> >>> evelop-metrics/jobs/GeodeIntegrationTestMetrics/builds/66
> >>> [4] https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/d
> >>> evelop-metrics/jobs/GeodeFlakyTestMetrics/builds/66
> >>> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-552
> >>>
> >>> On Apr 20, 2018, at 3:19 PM, Lynn Hughes-Godfrey <
> >>>> lhughesgodfrey@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I can help with that.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I surfed through our JIRA backlog and cleaned up a bunch of old
> >>>>> issues—primarily issues that we missed resolving when the fix was
> >>>>> made.  In
> >>>>> some cases I asked for help determining if the issue should be
> closed.
> >>>>> If
> >>>>> you got one of these requests please try and follow up in the next
> week
> >>>>> or
> >>>>> so and close if needed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There are a number of issues remaining that probably deserve a deeper
> >>>>> review.  Some of these include:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Bugs that have insufficient detail and can’t be reproduced
> >>>>> - Tasks that may no longer be relevant
> >>>>> - Ideas that are good but we may never get around to doing them
> >>>>> - CI failures that no longer occur
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ideally I’d like to close out issues where appropriate to make the
> >>>>> backlog
> >>>>> more manageable and approachable.  Any volunteers to help with this
> >>>>> effort?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anthony
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
>
>