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 <cjno...@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.medin...@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 > > > <david.medin...@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? > > > > > > > > > >
