What I'm used to is having two buckets for a release: tickets in the release (if not complete they are blockers), and triage. How this is done isn't important but I do feel it's important to have both.
Right now I don't see a active triage, but to Josh's point we would need to know who should first. Without answering, let me ask a question; should I (non committer) be adding blockers? If I add a blocker who should verify it should block? What if project members elect non-commiters to do this? On Mon, Mar 30, 2020, 8:45 AM Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > Regardless of how we indicate optional vs. required for rel, are there > strong opinions on who should set that metadata on tickets? Reporter? > Assignee? One person? A group of people? > > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 10:04 AM Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > FWIW, I don't care what we go with as long as we can differentiate > tickets > > that are optional for the rel vs. tickets that are blockers and filter > the > > JIRA board on them so people know where they should focus their effort. > > > > The rest of it's just paint colors to me. > > > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 9:24 AM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> > > >> > Alternatively, we could revert to using 4.0.X or 4.X as we once did to > >> > indicate something is targeting a release vs. blocking on inclusion > for > >> it. > >> > That seems to be a more "project JIRA hackish idiom", and one that's > >> > historically been confusing for people. At least with a label it would > >> be > >> > clear with a name like "4.0-blocker", and we could then easily filter > >> the > >> > JIRA board on it. > >> > > >> > >> > >> Now that I better understand Benedict's previous response (see the > >> 'Dev Cassandra 4.0 Dev Work Status' thread¹), I'm leaning with his view > >> for > >> now. > >> > >> I certainly missed the difference on how tickets ended up resolved as > >> `4.0-alpha`. That unresolved `4.x` tickets were non-blockers that could > >> still go into `4.0-alpha` if they satisfied the feature freeze and met > >> someone's itch, while the unresolved `4.0-alpha` tickets were those the > >> community declared as blockers. > >> > >> Putting aside the discussion on what is a blocker, when it is discovered > >> to > >> be a blocker (and vice versa). My confusion stemmed from the fact there > >> was > >> no specific alpha|beta versions for tickets to get resolved into, eg > >> 4.0-alpha1, 4.0-alpha2, etc. So it wasn't just that the normal `.x` > >> nomenclature got changed, but having accurate fix versions was also > >> removed. If we added the specific alpha|beta versions then I wouldn't > >> consider the approach to be a "hackish idiom" anymore. The 4.0-alpha, > >> 4.0-beta and 4.0, versions become purely target versions like the `.x`, > >> and > >> no resolved ticket is ever assigned them. > >> > >> The simpler we can make and document this the better. please. > >> > >> regards, > >> Mick > >> > >> ¹) > >> > >> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rd06dabeaa10849795d15ee77c1a8c400b034dce005ac2d0b9366567a%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E > >> > > >
