You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@accumulo.apache.org by David Medinets <da...@gmail.com> on 2014/04/19 06:01:02 UTC
551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
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?
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Corey Nolet <cj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +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.
>
>
What about with a final comment that says something like:
"Unfortunately, we don't have any spare cycles to handle an implementation
for this request. If anyone would like to take on championing this feature,
please reopen the ticket and ask to have it assigned to you."
Even then you think the won't fix label will scare them away? What about
closing them "incomplete"?
--
Sean
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Posted by Corey Nolet <cj...@gmail.com>.
+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" <vi...@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 <bu...@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 <cj...@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" <vi...@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 <vi...@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
>> > > > > > >> > > > <da...@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
>> >
>>
>
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Posted by Corey Nolet <cj...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Apr 21, 2014 11:47 AM, "John Vines" <vi...@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 <bu...@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 <cj...@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" <vi...@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 <ct...@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 <vi...@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
> > > > > > >> > > > <da...@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
> >
>
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Posted by John Vines <vi...@apache.org>.
what about just changing them from being improvements to wishes?
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Bill Havanki <bh...@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 <bu...@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 <cj...@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" <vi...@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 <ct...@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 <vi...@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 <md...@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
> > > > > >> > > > <da...@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
>
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Posted by Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>.
+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 <bu...@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 <cj...@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" <vi...@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 <ct...@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 <vi...@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 <cj...@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 <md...@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
> > > > >> > > > <da...@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
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
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 <cj...@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" <vi...@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 <ct...@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 <vi...@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 <cj...@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 <md...@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
> > > >> > > > <da...@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
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Posted by Corey Nolet <cj...@gmail.com>.
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" <vi...@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 <ct...@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 <vi...@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" <da...@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 <cj...@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 <md...@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
> > >> > > > <da...@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?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
Perhaps (hence my caveat with regard to whether the fact of a ticket
being open is problematic). Since it's reversible, "Won't Fix" can
easily be interpreted as "Won't Fix at this time". It could always be
reopened, if we decide there's more value in not having open tickets.
To avoid possibly deterring volunteers, we could easily document why
we won't fix (eg. "Won't Fix, low priority, little interest; reopen if
interest resurges").
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:51 PM, John Vines <vi...@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 <ct...@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 <vi...@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" <da...@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 <cj...@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 <md...@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
>> >> > > > <da...@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?
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Posted by John Vines <vi...@apache.org>.
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 <ct...@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 <vi...@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" <da...@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 <cj...@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 <md...@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
> >> > > > <da...@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?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
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 <vi...@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" <da...@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 <cj...@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 <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Deleting tickets is a no-no, but flagging them is certainly fine.
>> > > On Apr 19, 2014 12:03 AM, "David Medinets" <da...@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
>> > > > <da...@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?
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Posted by John Vines <vi...@apache.org>.
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" <da...@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 <cj...@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 <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Deleting tickets is a no-no, but flagging them is certainly fine.
> > > On Apr 19, 2014 12:03 AM, "David Medinets" <da...@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
> > > > <da...@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?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Posted by David Medinets <da...@gmail.com>.
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 <cj...@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 <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
>
> > Deleting tickets is a no-no, but flagging them is certainly fine.
> > On Apr 19, 2014 12:03 AM, "David Medinets" <da...@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
> > > <da...@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?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Posted by Corey Nolet <cj...@gmail.com>.
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 <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
> Deleting tickets is a no-no, but flagging them is certainly fine.
> On Apr 19, 2014 12:03 AM, "David Medinets" <da...@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
> > <da...@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?
> > >
> >
>
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Posted by Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com>.
Deleting tickets is a no-no, but flagging them is certainly fine.
On Apr 19, 2014 12:03 AM, "David Medinets" <da...@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
> <da...@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?
> >
>
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
+1
Actually. Anything with out a fixVersion in 1.5+ should be flagged to make
sure it's still an issue.
--
Sean
On Apr 18, 2014 11:03 PM, "David Medinets" <da...@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
> <da...@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?
> >
>
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Posted by David Medinets <da...@gmail.com>.
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
<da...@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?
>