You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> on 2009/11/21 03:30:19 UTC
Are JIRA issue flooding your inbox?
Today I attacked JIRA with the goal of weeding out issues that no
longer apply. I worked through about 150 issues, closing many old and
unrelated issues, recategorizing others. Some of those issues (only 31
of them) have been marked with a version named NEEDS_REVIEWED. I've
created and shared a filter for these issues here:
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?mode=hide&requestId=11516
These issues need further attention. So I'm asking that you take a bit
to review just a few of those issues with the following items in mind:
1) Does the issue have a patch? If so, please dig in enough to
determine if the issue is still valid.
2) Does the issue have steps to reproduce? If so, please dig in to
determine if the issue is still valid.
2) Are there votes and watches on the issue indicating popularity? If
so, reconsider before closing an issue.
With all of us pitching into to do a little bit of work, the task will
get done faster. The goal of this exercise is to:
1) Mark issues for 5.4.0 if they still apply
2) Close issues that no longer apply
3) Close issues that don't have enough info to reproduce
4) Recategorize issues that simply request a feature with no other
info as type Wish
Let me know if you have any problems or questions.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
Re: Are JIRA issue flooding your inbox?
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:19 AM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> I think a good middle ground is that we time box how long we let an
> issue without a unit test sit around before it's kicked. If the
> original reporter or another contributor has not provided a unit test
> in a month, we should close it out.
I agree that we should begin aging issues, especially if they don't
even have steps to reproduce. If they don't even have that, then we
should mark the issue as Can't Reproduce and add a comment encouraging
the user to reopen the issue if they can provide steps to reproduce or
even a test. It really boils down to just staying on top of the issues
as they're opened and taking action to close those that are
insufficient.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
Re: Are JIRA issue flooding your inbox?
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
I think a good middle ground is that we time box how long we let an
issue without a unit test sit around before it's kicked. If the
original reporter or another contributor has not provided a unit test
in a month, we should close it out.
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I attempt weeding every few months - trouble is - its a jungle ;)
>
> Agreed, which is why I'm trying to get everyone to look at a few. Then
> we can move on to the 5.4.0 issues using the same scrutiny.
>
>> A lot of
>> the unresolved issues will take a lot of time to validate - as they do have
>> steps to reproduce - but they aren't junit tests
>
> HIram and I talked about that briefly. We agreed that we need to be
> more strict about this. Hiram is in favor of kicking any issue that
> doesn't have a test. I wouldn't go that far, my threshold is a
> requirement of steps to reproduce. So if neither of those are
> available, and the issue seems sufficiently unclear, just kick it.
>
>> Can you make the filter public btw ? I can't see it
>
> Sorry about that, it's now shared.
>
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com/
Re: Are JIRA issue flooding your inbox?
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I attempt weeding every few months - trouble is - its a jungle ;)
Agreed, which is why I'm trying to get everyone to look at a few. Then
we can move on to the 5.4.0 issues using the same scrutiny.
> A lot of
> the unresolved issues will take a lot of time to validate - as they do have
> steps to reproduce - but they aren't junit tests
HIram and I talked about that briefly. We agreed that we need to be
more strict about this. Hiram is in favor of kicking any issue that
doesn't have a test. I wouldn't go that far, my threshold is a
requirement of steps to reproduce. So if neither of those are
available, and the issue seems sufficiently unclear, just kick it.
> Can you make the filter public btw ? I can't see it
Sorry about that, it's now shared.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
Re: Are JIRA issue flooding your inbox?
Posted by Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>.
I attempt weeding every few months - trouble is - its a jungle ;) A
lot of the unresolved issues will take a lot of time to validate - as
they do have steps to reproduce - but they aren't junit tests
Can you make the filter public btw ? I can't see it
On 21 Nov 2009, at 02:30, Bruce Snyder wrote:
> Today I attacked JIRA with the goal of weeding out issues that no
> longer apply. I worked through about 150 issues, closing many old and
> unrelated issues, recategorizing others. Some of those issues (only 31
> of them) have been marked with a version named NEEDS_REVIEWED. I've
> created and shared a filter for these issues here:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/activemq/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?mode=hide&requestId=11516
>
> These issues need further attention. So I'm asking that you take a bit
> to review just a few of those issues with the following items in mind:
>
> 1) Does the issue have a patch? If so, please dig in enough to
> determine if the issue is still valid.
> 2) Does the issue have steps to reproduce? If so, please dig in to
> determine if the issue is still valid.
> 2) Are there votes and watches on the issue indicating popularity? If
> so, reconsider before closing an issue.
>
> With all of us pitching into to do a little bit of work, the task will
> get done faster. The goal of this exercise is to:
>
> 1) Mark issues for 5.4.0 if they still apply
> 2) Close issues that no longer apply
> 3) Close issues that don't have enough info to reproduce
> 4) Recategorize issues that simply request a feature with no other
> info as type Wish
>
> Let me know if you have any problems or questions.
>
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!
> G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
Rob Davies
http://twitter.com/rajdavies
I work here: http://fusesource.com
My Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com/
I'm writing this: http://www.manning.com/snyder/