what about just changing them from being improvements to wishes?
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Bill Havanki <bhava...@clouderagovt.com>wrote: > +1 to using "Won't Fix". "Won't" can mean "won't anytime soon". Labeling as > "someday" or "wishlist" or something sounds great to me. The tickets remain > in JIRA, so they can be resurrected if we change our minds or if an eager > contributor comes along. Nothing is lost. > > I'll look into getting our ASF wiki space established if no one is doing so > already. This isn't the only time it's been proposed for use lately. > > Thanks to David and everybody doing the spring cleaning. > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > What do we want Jira to represent? I prefer it when projects use Jira as > a > > work queue. If a feature request hasn't gotten interest in 2 years, it's > > very unlikely it will suddenly jump to the top of our priority list. > > > > I'm all for suggesting that requestors work on a patch and offering > > feedback to guide them. But if there isn't someone willing to do the > work, > > the ticket is effectively wontfix. We should make sure there's a comment > > that explains that we're open to a feature if someone comes forward to do > > the work. We could also add a label so it's easier for the interested to > > find them. > > > > There is a cost to keeping these defunct tickets around. Old, untended > > tickets discourage new participants. They make us look unresponsive and > > they represent noise for those trying to look at what's going on. > > > > We do need a place for ideas we find interesting but don't have resources > > to handle yet. Many projects request that feature requests start on the > > mailing list to gauge interest. We could just do that, though the mail > > archive is neither super easy to search nor a convenient point of > > reference. > > > > Maybe this would be a good use of our ASF wiki space? > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Corey Nolet <cjno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sean > > > > > > -- > // Bill Havanki > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions > // 443.686.9283 >