You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geode.apache.org by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> on 2018/04/20 20:46:01 UTC
Reviewing our JIRA's
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
Posted by 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
>
>
Re: Reviewing our JIRA's
Posted by 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
Posted by Lynn Hughes-Godfrey <lh...@pivotal.io>.
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
Posted by Galen O'Sullivan <go...@pivotal.io>.
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&jql=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/develop-metrics/jobs/GeodeDistributedTestMetrics/builds/66
> [3] https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/develop-metrics/jobs/GeodeIntegrationTestMetrics/builds/66
> [4] https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/develop-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 <lh...@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
Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
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&jql=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/develop-metrics/jobs/GeodeDistributedTestMetrics/builds/66
[3] https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/develop-metrics/jobs/GeodeIntegrationTestMetrics/builds/66
[4] https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/develop-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 <lh...@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
Posted by Lynn Hughes-Godfrey <lh...@pivotal.io>.
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
>
>