+1 On Apr 21, 2014 11:47 AM, "John Vines" <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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 > > >
