I agree. Are those tickets really getting in the way? Maybe they could be labeled differently to separate them from tech debt, bugs, and other active features? On Apr 19, 2014 3:51 PM, "John Vines" <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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? > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >
