Interesting: you could consider the JIRA as active as long as the linked PRs are open.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 2:28 PM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote: > One thing I noticed is that links being added to issues automatically > (e.g. a PR is opened that tags something) doesn't reset the activity > counter so things are marked stale even though there are PRs opened for the > issue recently. > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 10:37 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Yes, my inbox is hit as well. I'm enjoying going through some old bugs >> actually. One takeaway is that we have a lot of early Jiras that are still >> relevant, and also that there are a lot of duplicates. I think some >> automation to help find duplicates might be helpful. >> >> Also, some accidental automation humor: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6414 >> >> Kenn >> >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 8:39 AM Brian Hulette <bhule...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
