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 <ctubb...@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.medin...@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 <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? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >
