+1 I thought "proposal" would be good enough to convey the message. "Wont fix" is confusing and I could see possible contributors being starred away by it. On Apr 21, 2014 1:04 PM, cjno...@gmail.com wrote:
> +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 >> > >> >
