[ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own Jira tickets?

[Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>]

Hi all,

It's frustrating that folks aren't maintaining reasonable status /
updates for tickets assigned to themselves.  Sure, I'll keep looking
through them and asking questions as I go...  but wouldn't it be
easier if you all just did it for the ones that you own?  A little bit
of personal ownership and responsibility goes a long way to helping us
all manage the releases.

Also - I'm not CC'ing anyone in particular here, because there are
many people that need to do this.  Spending the time to pull together
that list is about the same as spending the time actually reviewing
status on everything.  Others (Sudhap specifically) have asked for
this same thing that I am, and I'm frankly at a loss for how to get
everyone's attention on this.

If you have jira records assigned to you, that are currently set for
4.1.0, can you please either:

1 - Update with the master branch commit -sh and confirm that it made
it into the 4.1 branch?

or

2 - Update the fix version to be something other than 4.1.0?  Move the
child doc and QA (and other) tasks as well please!  Also, the wiki
requirement and design pages need to be moved to the correct parent
page as well.

-chip

RE: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own Jira tickets?

["Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net>]

Jira has a reminder plugin that will annoy (remind) the assignee if he has not updated the ticket. 

I don't know if apache has it enabled, if not, may be we can look into making a crawler that goes out and look for tickets that have not been updated for "x" number of days - and if found, send a reminder. 



-----Original Message-----
From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 6:42 PM
To: Marcus Sorensen
Cc: Chip Childers; Animesh Chaturvedi; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own Jira tickets?

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:15 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, for example, take
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-644. It is 
>>>> 'unresolved', but the code was merged a few weeks back. It has had 
>>>> two subtasks for awhile. Do I close it, or do I wait because those 
>>>> subtasks are dependencies of the whole package?
>>>
>>> Please to keep it open.
>>>
>>> Sorry for the confusion, but I've been talking about maintaining 
>>> comments about status, as well as keeping the fix version accurate.
>>>
>>
>> So closing the ticket doesn't close the sub-tasks - they are 
>> sub-tasks, not dependencies (or vice versa)
>>
>> --David
>
> Yes, I didn't think it would close the sub-tasks, but sub-tasks by 
> definition are things that need to be finished before completing the 
> task, no?

Hmm, I think they are all distinct, and only really 'linked' to the issue of getting code in which seems complete, but perhaps I am wrong.

--David

RE: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own Jira tickets?

[Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>]

> 
> I think in Jira the coupling is relatively loose, I was talking more
> about sub-tasks as a concept. If I had a task to bring a birthday cake
> to your party, and I had sub tasks of 'baking the cake', 'decorating
> the cake', and 'delivering the cake', then the task wouldn't be
> completed properly until I had done all three. We have a cake, the
> code has been committed, but it's not decorated. We could bring it to
> the party, but it wouldn't be pretty. Perhaps there should have been a
> sub-task to code/commit the solution, although I'm not sure how
> granular we want to get.

If every example can be as vividly illustrated as this, it would solve lots of communication problems.  :)

I wonder what analogy will you give to having a subtask to cherry-pick the fix to another release? 

--Alex

Re: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own Jira tickets?

[Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:41 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:15 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, for example, take
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-644. It is
>>>>> 'unresolved', but the code was merged a few weeks back. It has had two
>>>>> subtasks for awhile. Do I close it, or do I wait because those
>>>>> subtasks are dependencies of the whole package?
>>>>
>>>> Please to keep it open.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for the confusion, but I've been talking about maintaining
>>>> comments about status, as well as keeping the fix version accurate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So closing the ticket doesn't close the sub-tasks - they are
>>> sub-tasks, not dependencies (or vice versa)
>>>
>>> --David
>>
>> Yes, I didn't think it would close the sub-tasks, but sub-tasks by
>> definition are things that need to be finished before completing the
>> task, no?
>
> Hmm, I think they are all distinct, and only really 'linked' to the
> issue of getting code in which seems complete, but perhaps I am wrong.
>
> --David

I think in Jira the coupling is relatively loose, I was talking more
about sub-tasks as a concept. If I had a task to bring a birthday cake
to your party, and I had sub tasks of 'baking the cake', 'decorating
the cake', and 'delivering the cake', then the task wouldn't be
completed properly until I had done all three. We have a cake, the
code has been committed, but it's not decorated. We could bring it to
the party, but it wouldn't be pretty. Perhaps there should have been a
sub-task to code/commit the solution, although I'm not sure how
granular we want to get.

Re: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own Jira tickets?

[David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:15 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, for example, take
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-644. It is
>>>> 'unresolved', but the code was merged a few weeks back. It has had two
>>>> subtasks for awhile. Do I close it, or do I wait because those
>>>> subtasks are dependencies of the whole package?
>>>
>>> Please to keep it open.
>>>
>>> Sorry for the confusion, but I've been talking about maintaining
>>> comments about status, as well as keeping the fix version accurate.
>>>
>>
>> So closing the ticket doesn't close the sub-tasks - they are
>> sub-tasks, not dependencies (or vice versa)
>>
>> --David
>
> Yes, I didn't think it would close the sub-tasks, but sub-tasks by
> definition are things that need to be finished before completing the
> task, no?

Hmm, I think they are all distinct, and only really 'linked' to the
issue of getting code in which seems complete, but perhaps I am wrong.

--David

Re: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own Jira tickets?

[Ahmad Emneina <ae...@gmail.com>]

I dont think one can call any ticket closed until its sub tasks are all
sorted. so +1 to that.


On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:15 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Feb 5, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Well, for example, take
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-644. It is
> >>> 'unresolved', but the code was merged a few weeks back. It has had two
> >>> subtasks for awhile. Do I close it, or do I wait because those
> >>> subtasks are dependencies of the whole package?
> >>
> >> Please to keep it open.
> >>
> >> Sorry for the confusion, but I've been talking about maintaining
> >> comments about status, as well as keeping the fix version accurate.
> >>
> >
> > So closing the ticket doesn't close the sub-tasks - they are
> > sub-tasks, not dependencies (or vice versa)
> >
> > --David
>
> Yes, I didn't think it would close the sub-tasks, but sub-tasks by
> definition are things that need to be finished before completing the
> task, no?
>

Re: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own Jira tickets?

[Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:15 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, for example, take
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-644. It is
>>> 'unresolved', but the code was merged a few weeks back. It has had two
>>> subtasks for awhile. Do I close it, or do I wait because those
>>> subtasks are dependencies of the whole package?
>>
>> Please to keep it open.
>>
>> Sorry for the confusion, but I've been talking about maintaining
>> comments about status, as well as keeping the fix version accurate.
>>
>
> So closing the ticket doesn't close the sub-tasks - they are
> sub-tasks, not dependencies (or vice versa)
>
> --David

Yes, I didn't think it would close the sub-tasks, but sub-tasks by
definition are things that need to be finished before completing the
task, no?

Re: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own Jira tickets?

[David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, for example, take
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-644. It is
>> 'unresolved', but the code was merged a few weeks back. It has had two
>> subtasks for awhile. Do I close it, or do I wait because those
>> subtasks are dependencies of the whole package?
>
> Please to keep it open.
>
> Sorry for the confusion, but I've been talking about maintaining
> comments about status, as well as keeping the fix version accurate.
>

So closing the ticket doesn't close the sub-tasks - they are
sub-tasks, not dependencies (or vice versa)

--David

Re: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own Jira tickets?

[Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>]

On Feb 5, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, for example, take
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-644. It is
> 'unresolved', but the code was merged a few weeks back. It has had two
> subtasks for awhile. Do I close it, or do I wait because those
> subtasks are dependencies of the whole package?

Please to keep it open.

Sorry for the confusion, but I've been talking about maintaining
comments about status, as well as keeping the fix version accurate.

>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 5:52 PM, Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Or do we want to go to a system where we only create tasks to
>>> test/document features that are completed? That might make it easier
>>> for the manager to see what's really still pending.
>>
>> So that's sort of what I did, except too many people had features that
>> weren't realistically going to hit in time for 4.1.0 at the time we
>> created them. Those QA and doc tasks were added pretty late in the
>> cycle, which is another concern about folks being realistic. Sure,
>> many features will slip on every release. But this many?  Sounds like
>> folks were assuming too much, and not heeding the requests to pull
>> things out of 4.1.0 preemptively.
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadowsor@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 1:53 PM
>>>>> To: Animesh Chaturvedi
>>>>> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own
>>>>> Jira tickets?
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone created sub-tickets for ours (QA, etc). It doesn't feel right to close
>>>>> them until those pending subtasks are also completed. I made a comment that
>>>>> the features were completed and merged, and assumed that the owners of the
>>>>> sub tasks would update the ticket as well.
>>>> [Animesh>] Yes agreed they need to be closed when those subtasks are done by their respective owners
>>>>
>>>>> So perhaps at least some of it is just understanding how the flow is supposed to
>>>>> work.
>

RE: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own Jira tickets?

[Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Animesh Chaturvedi
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 3:32 PM
> To: 'Marcus Sorensen'
> Subject: RE: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own
> Jira tickets?
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadowsor@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 3:10 PM
> > To: Chip Childers
> > Cc: Animesh Chaturvedi; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating
> > their own Jira tickets?
> >
> > Well, for example, take
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-644. It is
> > 'unresolved', but the code was merged a few weeks back. It has had two
> > subtasks for awhile. Do I close it, or do I wait because those
> > subtasks are dependencies of the whole package?
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Chip Childers
> > <ch...@sungard.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Feb 5, 2013, at 5:52 PM, Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Or do we want to go to a system where we only create tasks to
> > >> test/document features that are completed? That might make it
> > >> easier for the manager to see what's really still pending.
> > >
> [Animesh>] IMO adding doc or test tasks only after a feature is complete does
> not allow for pre-release planning. A feature should be considered complete
> when all coding, testing and documentation tasks are done not just coding
> 
> 
> > > So that's sort of what I did, except too many people had features
> > > that weren't realistically going to hit in time for 4.1.0 at the
> > > time we created them. Those QA and doc tasks were added pretty late
> > > in the cycle, which is another concern about folks being realistic.
> > > Sure, many features will slip on every release. But this many?
> > > Sounds like folks were assuming too much, and not heeding the
> > > requests to pull things out of 4.1.0 preemptively.
> > >
> [Animesh>] Yes it was unrealistic and we can only get better from this.
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> > >> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadowsor@gmail.com]
> > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 1:53 PM
> > >>>> To: Animesh Chaturvedi
> > >>>> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for
> > >>>> updating their own Jira tickets?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Someone created sub-tickets for ours (QA, etc). It doesn't feel
> > >>>> right to close them until those pending subtasks are also
> > >>>> completed. I made a comment that the features were completed and
> > >>>> merged, and assumed that the owners of the sub tasks would update
> > >>>> the
> > ticket as well.
> > >>> [Animesh>] Yes agreed they need to be closed when those subtasks
> > >>> are done by their respective owners
> > >>>
> > >>>> So perhaps at least some of it is just understanding how the flow
> > >>>> is supposed to work.
> > >>

Re: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own Jira tickets?

[Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com>]

Well, for example, take
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-644. It is
'unresolved', but the code was merged a few weeks back. It has had two
subtasks for awhile. Do I close it, or do I wait because those
subtasks are dependencies of the whole package?

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 5:52 PM, Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Or do we want to go to a system where we only create tasks to
>> test/document features that are completed? That might make it easier
>> for the manager to see what's really still pending.
>
> So that's sort of what I did, except too many people had features that
> weren't realistically going to hit in time for 4.1.0 at the time we
> created them. Those QA and doc tasks were added pretty late in the
> cycle, which is another concern about folks being realistic. Sure,
> many features will slip on every release. But this many?  Sounds like
> folks were assuming too much, and not heeding the requests to pull
> things out of 4.1.0 preemptively.
>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadowsor@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 1:53 PM
>>>> To: Animesh Chaturvedi
>>>> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own
>>>> Jira tickets?
>>>>
>>>> Someone created sub-tickets for ours (QA, etc). It doesn't feel right to close
>>>> them until those pending subtasks are also completed. I made a comment that
>>>> the features were completed and merged, and assumed that the owners of the
>>>> sub tasks would update the ticket as well.
>>> [Animesh>] Yes agreed they need to be closed when those subtasks are done by their respective owners
>>>
>>>> So perhaps at least some of it is just understanding how the flow is supposed to
>>>> work.
>>

Re: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own Jira tickets?

[Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>]

On Feb 5, 2013, at 5:52 PM, Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Or do we want to go to a system where we only create tasks to
> test/document features that are completed? That might make it easier
> for the manager to see what's really still pending.

So that's sort of what I did, except too many people had features that
weren't realistically going to hit in time for 4.1.0 at the time we
created them. Those QA and doc tasks were added pretty late in the
cycle, which is another concern about folks being realistic. Sure,
many features will slip on every release. But this many?  Sounds like
folks were assuming too much, and not heeding the requests to pull
things out of 4.1.0 preemptively.

>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadowsor@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 1:53 PM
>>> To: Animesh Chaturvedi
>>> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own
>>> Jira tickets?
>>>
>>> Someone created sub-tickets for ours (QA, etc). It doesn't feel right to close
>>> them until those pending subtasks are also completed. I made a comment that
>>> the features were completed and merged, and assumed that the owners of the
>>> sub tasks would update the ticket as well.
>> [Animesh>] Yes agreed they need to be closed when those subtasks are done by their respective owners
>>
>>> So perhaps at least some of it is just understanding how the flow is supposed to
>>> work.
>

Re: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own Jira tickets?

[Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com>]

Or do we want to go to a system where we only create tasks to
test/document features that are completed? That might make it easier
for the manager to see what's really still pending.

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
<an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadowsor@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 1:53 PM
>> To: Animesh Chaturvedi
>> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own
>> Jira tickets?
>>
>> Someone created sub-tickets for ours (QA, etc). It doesn't feel right to close
>> them until those pending subtasks are also completed. I made a comment that
>> the features were completed and merged, and assumed that the owners of the
>> sub tasks would update the ticket as well.
>>
> [Animesh>] Yes agreed they need to be closed when those subtasks are done by their respective owners
>
>> So perhaps at least some of it is just understanding how the flow is supposed to
>> work.
>>

RE: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own Jira tickets?

[Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadowsor@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 1:53 PM
> To: Animesh Chaturvedi
> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own
> Jira tickets?
> 
> Someone created sub-tickets for ours (QA, etc). It doesn't feel right to close
> them until those pending subtasks are also completed. I made a comment that
> the features were completed and merged, and assumed that the owners of the
> sub tasks would update the ticket as well.
> 
[Animesh>] Yes agreed they need to be closed when those subtasks are done by their respective owners

> So perhaps at least some of it is just understanding how the flow is supposed to
> work.
> 

Re: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own Jira tickets?

[Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com>]

Someone created sub-tickets for ours (QA, etc). It doesn't feel right
to close them until those pending subtasks are also completed. I made
a comment that the features were completed and merged, and assumed
that the owners of the sub tasks would update the ticket as well.

So perhaps at least some of it is just understanding how the flow is
supposed to work.

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
<an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 12:04 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own Jira
>> tickets?
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> It's frustrating that folks aren't maintaining reasonable status / updates for
>> tickets assigned to themselves.  Sure, I'll keep looking through them and asking
>> questions as I go...  but wouldn't it be easier if you all just did it for the ones
>> that you own?  A little bit of personal ownership and responsibility goes a long
>> way to helping us all manage the releases.
>>
>> Also - I'm not CC'ing anyone in particular here, because there are many people
>> that need to do this.  Spending the time to pull together that list is about the
>> same as spending the time actually reviewing status on everything.  Others
>> (Sudhap specifically) have asked for this same thing that I am, and I'm frankly
>> at a loss for how to get everyone's attention on this.
>>
>> If you have jira records assigned to you, that are currently set for 4.1.0, can you
>> please either:
>>
>> 1 - Update with the master branch commit -sh and confirm that it made it into
>> the 4.1 branch?
>>
>> or
>>
>> 2 - Update the fix version to be something other than 4.1.0?  Move the child
>> doc and QA (and other) tasks as well please!  Also, the wiki requirement and
>> design pages need to be moved to the correct parent page as well.
>>
>> -chip
> [Animesh>] I agree it is frustrating as one person to go chase folks, and best done by people taking their own responsibility.
> Having said that let me follow up on (1).
> On (2) I had already moved many features ahead of 1/31 and very few remaining were moved on 1/31.
>

RE: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own Jira tickets?

[Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 12:04 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: [ACS41] Can folks please take responsibility for updating their own Jira
> tickets?
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> It's frustrating that folks aren't maintaining reasonable status / updates for
> tickets assigned to themselves.  Sure, I'll keep looking through them and asking
> questions as I go...  but wouldn't it be easier if you all just did it for the ones
> that you own?  A little bit of personal ownership and responsibility goes a long
> way to helping us all manage the releases.
> 
> Also - I'm not CC'ing anyone in particular here, because there are many people
> that need to do this.  Spending the time to pull together that list is about the
> same as spending the time actually reviewing status on everything.  Others
> (Sudhap specifically) have asked for this same thing that I am, and I'm frankly
> at a loss for how to get everyone's attention on this.
> 
> If you have jira records assigned to you, that are currently set for 4.1.0, can you
> please either:
> 
> 1 - Update with the master branch commit -sh and confirm that it made it into
> the 4.1 branch?
> 
> or
> 
> 2 - Update the fix version to be something other than 4.1.0?  Move the child
> doc and QA (and other) tasks as well please!  Also, the wiki requirement and
> design pages need to be moved to the correct parent page as well.
> 
> -chip
[Animesh>] I agree it is frustrating as one person to go chase folks, and best done by people taking their own responsibility. 
Having said that let me follow up on (1).
On (2) I had already moved many features ahead of 1/31 and very few remaining were moved on 1/31.