JIRA necromancy

[Tim Armstrong <ta...@cloudera.com>]

I noticed that there's been a trend recently towards reopening old issues
instead of filing new issues. Not trying to pick on anyone but it seems
like its worth having a discussion about best practices.

Personally I think reopening JIRAs is often a bad thing for a several
reasons:

* We don't tend to properly triage the issue to determine if it is actually
has same root cause as the old one. E.g. the same test fails for two
completely different reasons.
* People are tempted to skimp on including diagnostic information.
* It gets confusing trying to figure out which version the issue was fixed
in, particularly if the new thing turns out to be a separate issue.
* The target version, fix version, priority, etc is wrong
* It automatically ends up on the plate of whoever last fixed it, rather
than whoever currently has bandwidth. This is particularly bad for anyone
who has fixed or tried to fix a lot of flaky tests over the last year or
two (e.g. me).

I'd prefer if we opened new issues by default unless we're really confident
that it's the same issue. It's much easier to mark issues as duplicates
than it is to separate out two distinct issues tracked by one JIRA. Even if
we're pretty sure it's the same thing, I think we should think carefully
before re-opening issues from previous releases.

Anyway, this is just my opinion. Do others agree or disagree?

- Tim

Re: JIRA necromancy

[Tim Armstrong <ta...@cloudera.com>]

Yeah I do think it's legitimate to reopen if it was closed as "cannot
reproduce" or if there's clear evidence that it's the same root cause and
the previous fix didn't solve the problem (e.g. the timeout example).

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Daniel Hecht <dh...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> I agree, a JIRA shouldn't be reopened unless it's high confidence that the
> original root cause wasn't actually addressed.
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Tim Armstrong <ta...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I noticed that there's been a trend recently towards reopening old issues
> > instead of filing new issues. Not trying to pick on anyone but it seems
> > like its worth having a discussion about best practices.
> >
> > Personally I think reopening JIRAs is often a bad thing for a several
> > reasons:
> >
> > * We don't tend to properly triage the issue to determine if it is
> actually
> > has same root cause as the old one. E.g. the same test fails for two
> > completely different reasons.
> > * People are tempted to skimp on including diagnostic information.
> > * It gets confusing trying to figure out which version the issue was
> fixed
> > in, particularly if the new thing turns out to be a separate issue.
> > * The target version, fix version, priority, etc is wrong
> > * It automatically ends up on the plate of whoever last fixed it, rather
> > than whoever currently has bandwidth. This is particularly bad for anyone
> > who has fixed or tried to fix a lot of flaky tests over the last year or
> > two (e.g. me).
> >
> > I'd prefer if we opened new issues by default unless we're really
> confident
> > that it's the same issue. It's much easier to mark issues as duplicates
> > than it is to separate out two distinct issues tracked by one JIRA. Even
> if
> > we're pretty sure it's the same thing, I think we should think carefully
> > before re-opening issues from previous releases.
> >
> > Anyway, this is just my opinion. Do others agree or disagree?
> >
> > - Tim
> >
>

Re: JIRA necromancy

[Daniel Hecht <dh...@cloudera.com>]

I agree, a JIRA shouldn't be reopened unless it's high confidence that the
original root cause wasn't actually addressed.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Tim Armstrong <ta...@cloudera.com>
wrote:

> I noticed that there's been a trend recently towards reopening old issues
> instead of filing new issues. Not trying to pick on anyone but it seems
> like its worth having a discussion about best practices.
>
> Personally I think reopening JIRAs is often a bad thing for a several
> reasons:
>
> * We don't tend to properly triage the issue to determine if it is actually
> has same root cause as the old one. E.g. the same test fails for two
> completely different reasons.
> * People are tempted to skimp on including diagnostic information.
> * It gets confusing trying to figure out which version the issue was fixed
> in, particularly if the new thing turns out to be a separate issue.
> * The target version, fix version, priority, etc is wrong
> * It automatically ends up on the plate of whoever last fixed it, rather
> than whoever currently has bandwidth. This is particularly bad for anyone
> who has fixed or tried to fix a lot of flaky tests over the last year or
> two (e.g. me).
>
> I'd prefer if we opened new issues by default unless we're really confident
> that it's the same issue. It's much easier to mark issues as duplicates
> than it is to separate out two distinct issues tracked by one JIRA. Even if
> we're pretty sure it's the same thing, I think we should think carefully
> before re-opening issues from previous releases.
>
> Anyway, this is just my opinion. Do others agree or disagree?
>
> - Tim
>

Re: JIRA necromancy

[Vuk Ercegovac <ve...@cloudera.com>]

I've seen it with flaky tests where the fixes can be simple (adjust a
timeout) or more complicated.
For these cases, seems like the flaky issue is closed too early.
Perhaps the fix should be allowed to make it through all tests if, for
example, if its based on timing?

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Alexander Behm <al...@cloudera.com>
wrote:

> I agree. Reopening can be very confusing.
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm convinced.
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Tim Armstrong <tarmstrong@cloudera.com
> >
> > wrote:
> > > I noticed that there's been a trend recently towards reopening old
> issues
> > > instead of filing new issues. Not trying to pick on anyone but it seems
> > > like its worth having a discussion about best practices.
> > >
> > > Personally I think reopening JIRAs is often a bad thing for a several
> > > reasons:
> > >
> > > * We don't tend to properly triage the issue to determine if it is
> > actually
> > > has same root cause as the old one. E.g. the same test fails for two
> > > completely different reasons.
> > > * People are tempted to skimp on including diagnostic information.
> > > * It gets confusing trying to figure out which version the issue was
> > fixed
> > > in, particularly if the new thing turns out to be a separate issue.
> > > * The target version, fix version, priority, etc is wrong
> > > * It automatically ends up on the plate of whoever last fixed it,
> rather
> > > than whoever currently has bandwidth. This is particularly bad for
> anyone
> > > who has fixed or tried to fix a lot of flaky tests over the last year
> or
> > > two (e.g. me).
> > >
> > > I'd prefer if we opened new issues by default unless we're really
> > confident
> > > that it's the same issue. It's much easier to mark issues as duplicates
> > > than it is to separate out two distinct issues tracked by one JIRA.
> Even
> > if
> > > we're pretty sure it's the same thing, I think we should think
> carefully
> > > before re-opening issues from previous releases.
> > >
> > > Anyway, this is just my opinion. Do others agree or disagree?
> > >
> > > - Tim
> >
>

Re: JIRA necromancy

[Alexandra Rodoni <ar...@cloudera.com>]

+1. Easier for docs to track.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Sailesh Mukil <sa...@cloudera.com>
wrote:

> Yes to this.
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Alexander Behm <al...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I agree. Reopening can be very confusing.
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm convinced.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Tim Armstrong <
> tarmstrong@cloudera.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > I noticed that there's been a trend recently towards reopening old
> > issues
> > > > instead of filing new issues. Not trying to pick on anyone but it
> seems
> > > > like its worth having a discussion about best practices.
> > > >
> > > > Personally I think reopening JIRAs is often a bad thing for a several
> > > > reasons:
> > > >
> > > > * We don't tend to properly triage the issue to determine if it is
> > > actually
> > > > has same root cause as the old one. E.g. the same test fails for two
> > > > completely different reasons.
> > > > * People are tempted to skimp on including diagnostic information.
> > > > * It gets confusing trying to figure out which version the issue was
> > > fixed
> > > > in, particularly if the new thing turns out to be a separate issue.
> > > > * The target version, fix version, priority, etc is wrong
> > > > * It automatically ends up on the plate of whoever last fixed it,
> > rather
> > > > than whoever currently has bandwidth. This is particularly bad for
> > anyone
> > > > who has fixed or tried to fix a lot of flaky tests over the last year
> > or
> > > > two (e.g. me).
> > > >
> > > > I'd prefer if we opened new issues by default unless we're really
> > > confident
> > > > that it's the same issue. It's much easier to mark issues as
> duplicates
> > > > than it is to separate out two distinct issues tracked by one JIRA.
> > Even
> > > if
> > > > we're pretty sure it's the same thing, I think we should think
> > carefully
> > > > before re-opening issues from previous releases.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, this is just my opinion. Do others agree or disagree?
> > > >
> > > > - Tim
> > >
> >
>

Re: JIRA necromancy

[Sailesh Mukil <sa...@cloudera.com>]

Yes to this.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Alexander Behm <al...@cloudera.com>
wrote:

> I agree. Reopening can be very confusing.
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm convinced.
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Tim Armstrong <tarmstrong@cloudera.com
> >
> > wrote:
> > > I noticed that there's been a trend recently towards reopening old
> issues
> > > instead of filing new issues. Not trying to pick on anyone but it seems
> > > like its worth having a discussion about best practices.
> > >
> > > Personally I think reopening JIRAs is often a bad thing for a several
> > > reasons:
> > >
> > > * We don't tend to properly triage the issue to determine if it is
> > actually
> > > has same root cause as the old one. E.g. the same test fails for two
> > > completely different reasons.
> > > * People are tempted to skimp on including diagnostic information.
> > > * It gets confusing trying to figure out which version the issue was
> > fixed
> > > in, particularly if the new thing turns out to be a separate issue.
> > > * The target version, fix version, priority, etc is wrong
> > > * It automatically ends up on the plate of whoever last fixed it,
> rather
> > > than whoever currently has bandwidth. This is particularly bad for
> anyone
> > > who has fixed or tried to fix a lot of flaky tests over the last year
> or
> > > two (e.g. me).
> > >
> > > I'd prefer if we opened new issues by default unless we're really
> > confident
> > > that it's the same issue. It's much easier to mark issues as duplicates
> > > than it is to separate out two distinct issues tracked by one JIRA.
> Even
> > if
> > > we're pretty sure it's the same thing, I think we should think
> carefully
> > > before re-opening issues from previous releases.
> > >
> > > Anyway, this is just my opinion. Do others agree or disagree?
> > >
> > > - Tim
> >
>

Re: JIRA necromancy

[Alexander Behm <al...@cloudera.com>]

I agree. Reopening can be very confusing.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> I'm convinced.
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Tim Armstrong <ta...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > I noticed that there's been a trend recently towards reopening old issues
> > instead of filing new issues. Not trying to pick on anyone but it seems
> > like its worth having a discussion about best practices.
> >
> > Personally I think reopening JIRAs is often a bad thing for a several
> > reasons:
> >
> > * We don't tend to properly triage the issue to determine if it is
> actually
> > has same root cause as the old one. E.g. the same test fails for two
> > completely different reasons.
> > * People are tempted to skimp on including diagnostic information.
> > * It gets confusing trying to figure out which version the issue was
> fixed
> > in, particularly if the new thing turns out to be a separate issue.
> > * The target version, fix version, priority, etc is wrong
> > * It automatically ends up on the plate of whoever last fixed it, rather
> > than whoever currently has bandwidth. This is particularly bad for anyone
> > who has fixed or tried to fix a lot of flaky tests over the last year or
> > two (e.g. me).
> >
> > I'd prefer if we opened new issues by default unless we're really
> confident
> > that it's the same issue. It's much easier to mark issues as duplicates
> > than it is to separate out two distinct issues tracked by one JIRA. Even
> if
> > we're pretty sure it's the same thing, I think we should think carefully
> > before re-opening issues from previous releases.
> >
> > Anyway, this is just my opinion. Do others agree or disagree?
> >
> > - Tim
>

Re: JIRA necromancy

[Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com>]

I'm convinced.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Tim Armstrong <ta...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> I noticed that there's been a trend recently towards reopening old issues
> instead of filing new issues. Not trying to pick on anyone but it seems
> like its worth having a discussion about best practices.
>
> Personally I think reopening JIRAs is often a bad thing for a several
> reasons:
>
> * We don't tend to properly triage the issue to determine if it is actually
> has same root cause as the old one. E.g. the same test fails for two
> completely different reasons.
> * People are tempted to skimp on including diagnostic information.
> * It gets confusing trying to figure out which version the issue was fixed
> in, particularly if the new thing turns out to be a separate issue.
> * The target version, fix version, priority, etc is wrong
> * It automatically ends up on the plate of whoever last fixed it, rather
> than whoever currently has bandwidth. This is particularly bad for anyone
> who has fixed or tried to fix a lot of flaky tests over the last year or
> two (e.g. me).
>
> I'd prefer if we opened new issues by default unless we're really confident
> that it's the same issue. It's much easier to mark issues as duplicates
> than it is to separate out two distinct issues tracked by one JIRA. Even if
> we're pretty sure it's the same thing, I think we should think carefully
> before re-opening issues from previous releases.
>
> Anyway, this is just my opinion. Do others agree or disagree?
>
> - Tim