On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 3:39 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote:
> Suppose, hypothetically, we say that if Fix Version is set, then > P0/Blocker and P1/Critical block release and lower priorities get bumped. > +1 to Kenn's suggestion. In addition, we can discourage setting Fix version for non-critical issues before issues are fixed. > > Most likely the release manager still pings and asks about all those > before bumping. Which means that in effect they were part of the burn down > and do block the release in the sense that they must be re-triaged away to > the next release. I would prefer less work for the release manager and more > emphasis on the default being nonblocking. > > One very different possibility is to ignore Fix Version on open bugs and > use a different search query as the burndown, auto bump everything that > didn't make it. > This may create a situation where an issue will eventually be closed, but Fix Version not updated, and confuse the users who will rely "Fix Version" to find which release actually fixes the issue. A pass over open bugs with a Fix Version set to next release (as currently done by a release manager) helps to make sure that unfixed bugs won't have Fix Version tag of the upcoming release. > Kenn > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 14:16 Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm fine with that, but in that case we should have a priority for >> release blockers, below which bugs get automatically bumped to the >> next release (and which becomes the burndown list). >> >> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 1:58 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > My takeaway from this thread is that priorities should have a shared >> community intuition and/or policy around how they are treated, which could >> eventually be formalized into SLOs. >> > >> > At a practical level, I do think that build breaks are higher priority >> than release blockers. If you are on this thread but not looking at the PR, >> here is the verbiage I added about urgency: >> > >> > P0/Blocker: "A P0 issue is more urgent than simply blocking the next >> release" >> > P1/Critical: "Most critical bugs should block release" >> > P2/Major: "No special urgency is associated" >> > ... >> > >> > Kenn >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:46 AM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> We cut a release every 6 weeks, according to schedule, making it easy >> >> to plan for, and the release manager typically sends out a warning >> >> email to remind everyone. I don't think it makes sense to do that for >> >> every ticket. Blockers should be reserved for things we really >> >> shouldn't release without. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:33 AM Pablo Estrada <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > I mentioned on the PR that I had been using the 'blocker' priority >> along with the 'fix version' field to mark issues that I want to get in the >> release. >> >> > Of course, this little practice of mine only matters much around >> release branch cutting time - and has been useful for me to track which >> things I want to ensure getting into the release / bump to the next /etc. >> >> > I've also found it to be useful as a way to communicate with the >> release manager without having to sync directly. >> >> > >> >> > What would be a reasonable way to tell the release manager "I'd like >> to get this feature in. please talk to me if you're about to cut the >> branch" - that also uses the priorities appropriately? - and that allows >> the release manager to know when a fix version is "more optional" / "less >> optional"? >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:20 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I finally got around to writing some of this up. It is minimal. >> Feedback is welcome, especially if what I have written does not accurately >> represent the community's approach. >> >> >> >> >> >> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9862 >> >> >> >> >> >> Kenn >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 3:21 PM Daniel Oliveira < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Ah, sorry, I missed that Alex was just quoting from our Jira >> installation (didn't read his email closely enough). Also I wasn't aware >> about those pages on our website. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Seeing as we do have definitions for our priorities, I guess my >> main request would be that they be made more discoverable somehow. I don't >> think the tooltips are reliable, and the pages on the website are >> informative, but hard to find. Since it feels a bit lazy to say "this isn't >> discoverable enough" without suggesting any improvements, I'd like to >> propose these two changes: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> 1. We should write a Beam Jira Guide with basic information about >> our Jira. I think the bug priorities should go in here, but also anything >> else we would want someone to know before filing any Jira issues, like how >> our components are organized or what the different issue types mean. This >> guide could either be written in the website or the wiki, but I think it >> should definitely be linked in https://beam.apache.org/contribute/ so >> that newcomers read it before getting their Jira account approved. The goal >> here being to have a reference for the basics of our Jira since at the >> moment it doesn't seem like we have anything for this. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> 2. The existing info on Post-commit and pre-commit policies >> doesn't seem very discoverable to someone monitoring the Pre/Post-commits. >> I've reported a handful of test-failures already and haven't seen this link >> mentioned much. We should try to find a way to funnel people towards this >> link when there's an issue, the same way we try to funnel people towards >> the contribution guide when they write a PR. As a note, while writing this >> email I remembered this link that someone gave me before ( >> https://s.apache.org/beam-test-failure). That mentions the Post-commit >> policies page, so maybe it's just a matter of pasting that all over our >> Jenkins builds whenever we have a failing test? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> PS: I'm also definitely for SLOs, but I figure it's probably >> better discussed in a separate thread so I'm trying to stick to the subject >> of priority definitions. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:17 AM Scott Wegner <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Thanks for driving this discussion. I also was not aware of these >> existing definitions. Once we agree on the terms, let's add them to our >> Contributor Guide and start using them. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> +1 in general; I like both Alex and Kenn's definitions; >> Additional wordsmithing could be moved to a Pull Request. Can we make the >> definitions useful for both the person filing a bug, and the assignee, i.e. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> <Priority Level>: <Criteria for what types of issues should be >> assigned>. <Expectations for responding to a Priority Level issue> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 7:49 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> The content that Alex posted* is the definition from our Jira >> installation anyhow. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> I just searched around, and there's >> https://community.atlassian.com/t5/Jira-questions/According-to-Jira-What-is-Blocker-Critical-Major-Minor-and/qaq-p/668774 >> which makes clear that this is really user-defined, since Jira has many >> deployments with their own configs. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> I guess what I want to know about this thread is what action is >> being proposed? >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Previously, there was a thread that resulted in >> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/precommit-policies/ and >> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/postcommits-policies/. These have >> test failures and flakes as Critical. I agree with Alex that these should >> be Blocker. They disrupt the work of the entire community, so we need to >> drop everything and get green again. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Other than that, I think what you - Daniel - are suggesting is >> that the definition might be best expressed as SLOs. I asked on >> [email protected] about how we could have those and the answer is >> the homebrew >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/trunk/projects/status/sla/jira/. >> If anyone has time to dig into that and see if it can work for us, that >> would be cool. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Kenn >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> *Blocker: Blocks development and/or testing work, production >> could not run >> >> >>>>> Critical: Crashes, loss of data, severe memory leak. >> >> >>>>> Major (Default): Major loss of function. >> >> >>>>> Minor: Minor loss of function, or other problem where easy >> workaround is present. >> >> >>>>> Trivial: Trivial Cosmetic problem like misspelt words or >> misaligned text. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 7:20 PM Daniel Oliveira < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Are there existing meanings for the priorities in Jira already? >> I wasn't able to find any info on either the Beam website or wiki about it, >> so I've just been prioritizing issues based on gut feeling. If not, I think >> having some well-defined priorities would be nice, at least for our >> test-failures, and especially if we wanna have some SLOs like I've seen >> being thrown about. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:06 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> I've been thinking about this since working on the release. If >> I ignore the names I think: >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> P0: get paged, stop whatever you planned on doing, work late >> to fix >> >> >>>>>>> P1: continually update everyone on status and shouldn't sit >> around unassigned >> >> >>>>>>> P2: most things here; they can be planned or picked up by >> whomever >> >> >>>>>>> P3: nice-to-have things, maybe starter tasks or lesser >> cleanup, but no driving need >> >> >>>>>>> Sometimes there's P4 but I don't value it. Often P3 is a >> deprioritized thing from P2, so more involved and complex, while P4 is >> something easy and not important filed just as a reminder. Either way, they >> are both not on the main path of work. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> I looked into it and the Jira priority scheme determines the >> set of priorities as well as the default. Ours is shared by 635 projects. >> Probably worth keeping. The default priority is Major which would >> correspond with P2. We can expect the default to be where most issues end >> up. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> P0 == Blocker: get paged, stop whatever you planned on doing, >> work late to fix >> >> >>>>>>> P1 == Critical: continually update everyone on status and >> shouldn't sit around unassigned >> >> >>>>>>> P0 == Major (default): most things here; they can be planned >> or picked up by whomever >> >> >>>>>>> P3 == Minor: nice-to-have things, maybe starter tasks or >> lesser cleanup, but no driving need >> >> >>>>>>> Trivial: Maybe this is attractive to newcomers as it makes it >> sound easy. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Kenn >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:08 PM Alex Amato <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Hello Beam community, I was thinking about this and found >> some information to share/discuss. Would it be possible to confirm my >> thinking on this: >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> There are 5 priorities in the JIRA system today (tooltip >> link): >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Blocker Blocks development and/or testing work, production >> could not run >> >> >>>>>>>> Critical Crashes, loss of data, severe memory leak. >> >> >>>>>>>> Major Major loss of function. >> >> >>>>>>>> Minor Minor loss of function, or other problem where easy >> workaround is present. >> >> >>>>>>>> Trivial Cosmetic problem like misspelt words or misaligned >> text. >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> How should JIRA issues be prioritized for pre/post commit >> test failures? >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> I think Blocker >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> What about the flakey failures? >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Blocker as well? >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> How should non test issues be prioritized? (E.g. feature to >> implement or bugs not regularly breaking tests). >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> I suggest Minor, but its not clear how to distinguish between >> these. >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Below is my thinking: But I wanted to know what the >> Apache/Beam community generally thinks about these priorities. >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Blocker: Expect to be paged. Production systems are down. >> >> >>>>>>>> Critical: Expect to be contacted by email or a bot to fix >> this. >> >> >>>>>>>> Major: Some loss of function in the repository, can issues >> that need to be addressed soon are here. >> >> >>>>>>>> Minor: Most issues will be here, important issues within this >> will get picked up and completed. FRs, bugs. >> >> >>>>>>>> Trivial: Unlikely to be implemented, far too many issues in >> this category. FRs, bugs. >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Thanks for helping to clear this up >> >> >>>>>>>> Alex >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> -- >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Got feedback? tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback >> >
