RIP my inbox :) This is overwhelming, but I think it will be very good. Thanks for setting this up Kenn.
Brian On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 9:57 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: > I have now added modified 4: > > 4a. labeling stale-P2 for unassigned 60 day old jiras > 4b. after 14 days downgrading stale-P2 labeled jiras to P3 > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 9:06 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I just added 3a and 3b. The comments will appear to be coming from me. >> That is a misconfiguration that I have now fixed. In the future they will >> come from the "Beam Jira Bot". There were 1119 stale-assigned issues. >> >> Kenn >> >> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 1:41 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Based on the mild consensus and my availability, I just did #1. I have >>> not done any others. It seems #2 may be infeasible [1] and I am convinced >>> that we should not auto-close. I'll update again in a bit... >>> >>> Kenn >>> >>> [1] https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRACLOUD-28064 >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 2:54 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 for the automations. I agree with concerns related to #4. Auto >>>> closing issues is not a good experience. A person goes through the work of >>>> reporting an issue. This might very well be their first contribution. >>>> Automatically closing these issues with no human comments might make the >>>> reporter feel ignored. Auto-lowering the priority is a good suggestion. >>>> >>>> I wonder if we can also do a spring cleaning up reviewing jira >>>> components/their default owners. If we can break the jira into more >>>> components, we could have more people as component owners, triaging smaller >>>> per-component backlogs. >>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 11:17 AM Tyson Hamilton <tyso...@google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 for automation. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding #4, what about adding the constraint that this rule only >>>>> applies to issues that are incomplete and require more information from >>>>> the >>>>> reporter? >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately it would require a human to triage issues to determine >>>>> this and apply an appropriate label. Triage should happen regularly >>>>> anyways, ideally even periodically for old issues, though this may be >>>>> asking a bit too much. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Even with automation, manual triaging would be a valuable action. If >>>> the automation can reduce the backlog for manual reviewers, doing manual >>>> triage would be easier to do, incremental work. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regarding #5 & #6, having some SLO for P0/P1 issues for both updates >>>>> and closures would be helpful in setting expectations. A daily P0 >>>>> violation >>>>> email to dev@ sounds right, for P1 weekly. What would the Slack >>>>> notification look like? It would be neat if it could ping the assignee >>>>> directly. What group would be victims for the auto-assigner? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I agree with this. Email, or a dashboard would work equally well. (We >>>> need to first agree on SLOs though.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2020/04/29 17:15:48, Brian Hulette <bhule...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> > Agree I think this all sounds good except for 4. >>>>> > >>>>> > I like the idea of using automation to help tame the backlog of >>>>> jiras, but >>>>> > I worry that 4 could lead to a bad experience for users. Say they >>>>> file a >>>>> > jira and maybe get it assigned, and then watch as it bounces all the >>>>> way >>>>> > down to closed as obsolete because it was ignored. >>>>> > The status quo (the bug just gets ignored anyway) isn't great, but >>>>> at least >>>>> > the user doesn't have automation working against them. >>>>> > >>>>> > Is there something else we can do to make sure these bugs get >>>>> attention? >>>>> > >>>>> > Brian >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:00 AM Robert Bradshaw < >>>>> rober...@google.com> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > > +1 to more automation. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > I'm in favor of all but 4, I think it's quite common for issues to >>>>> be >>>>> > > noticed but not worked on for 60+ days. Most of the time when a >>>>> developer >>>>> > > files an issue they either (1) are working on it right now or (2) >>>>> are >>>>> > > filing it away because it's something they're not working on, but >>>>> should >>>>> > > get fixed. (Case in point, beginner issues that are not urgent but >>>>> nice to >>>>> > > have.) What we could do however is lower the priority after a set >>>>> amount of >>>>> > > time. (I suppose issues are a mix of blockers and backlog, and the >>>>> two >>>>> > > have very different characteristics.) >>>>> > > >>>>> > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 9:38 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > > >>>>> > >> Hi all, >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> A while ago [1], we discussed using "Automation for Jira" to >>>>> improve >>>>> > >> triage and backlog processing (I spend a lot of my time on this). >>>>> Due to >>>>> > >> some friction [2] [3] back then, I did not finish it. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> Now, I just happened to check and I do have the ability to create >>>>> rules >>>>> > >> directly. That's convenient! >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> So I want to re-propose some of the ideas that Ismaël had, >>>>> slightly >>>>> > >> modified, along with some other ideas I have from my experience >>>>> doing a lot >>>>> > >> of Jira handling. I will say it in specific rule form: >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> 1. When issue created: if assignee == creator then mark Open >>>>> (already >>>>> > >> Triaged), because someone is probably just filing a bug tracking >>>>> work they >>>>> > >> already started. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> 2. When issue linked to PR: mark it Open (already Triaged). *The >>>>> triggers >>>>> > >> should exist but seem to be missing. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> 3a. When assigned issue has no update in 30 days, add >>>>> "stale-assigned" >>>>> > >> label >>>>> > >> 3b. When issue with "stale-assigned" label has no update in 7 >>>>> days, >>>>> > >> unassign >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> 4a. When unassigned issue has no update in 60 days, add "stale" >>>>> label >>>>> > >> 4b. When issue with "stale" label has no update in 14 days, close >>>>> as >>>>> > >> Obsolete >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> And I think we can also use this to improve visibility and >>>>> understanding >>>>> > >> of expectation of high priority issues, per >>>>> > >> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/jira-priorities/ >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> 5. Some kind of daily alert for P0 "Blocker" issues, because >>>>> these are >>>>> > >> outages. The community is being blocked *right now* so it should >>>>> have dev@ >>>>> > >> visibility and at least daily updates (probably more). Options >>>>> include dev@ >>>>> > >> email, Slack notification, etc. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> 6. Some kind of alert or auto-assign for P1 "Critical" issues, >>>>> because >>>>> > >> these aren't an outage but they would hinder a release. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> And, finally, they can also automate some aspects of release >>>>> busywork: >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> 7. When a version is released, it can create the n+2 version. >>>>> Example: >>>>> > >> when 2.20.0 is being released, we already have 2.21.0 and move >>>>> issues to >>>>> > >> it. When 2.20.0 is finalized, create 2.22.0 so it is ready to >>>>> have issues >>>>> > >> moved to it. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> 8. We could have an automatic comment on bugs filed at P0 or P1 >>>>> or with >>>>> > >> Fix Version set to explain the special community awareness that >>>>> they imply. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> What do you think of each of these rules? Especially if you have >>>>> ideas of >>>>> > >> how to finish the ones that I left as just ideas. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> Kenn >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> [1] >>>>> > >> >>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/125851639b2f5c2ee55a9eb6b27cf07adee48e2d2a4e5157609b3132%40%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >>>>> > >> [2] >>>>> > >> >>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ff221c1de7163ef073494cb8873a523ef9f487d7275ec8ae41e91f23%40%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >>>>> > >> [3] >>>>> > >> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17756?focusedCommentId=16790143&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16790143 >>>>> > >> >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>
