Hey Great spring cleaning work going on here :) I think it's the right approach.
-- Jan Høydahl, search solution architect Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com Solr Training - www.solrtraining.com 16. mars 2013 kl. 20:28 skrev Erick Erickson <[email protected]>: > Jan: > > I've hit on a new policy when I closed a bunch of things today. For those > JIRAs that we decide NOT to close, I'm adding a comment explaining why I > didn't close it and/or inviting comment. That has the effect of removing the > JIRA from the query you provided and poking anyone still interested in it. > > FWIW, > Erick > > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Jan Høydahl <[email protected]> wrote: > I did a really small bulk-change for the 10 oldest LUCENE/SOLR issues without > activity, and tagged them SPRING_CLEANING_2013 > > That should spin off some activity, probably some will be closed due to > various reasons, and perhaps some will be revived? > > If this proves effective, I'll do a new bulk in a week or so for the 25 > issues never touched since 2008. I think that portioning THIS out in time in > smaller chunks will gain more attention than a big bang thing. > > I'll probably also do some more manual inspection on some of the oldest which > are obviously not relevant any more. > > -- > Jan Høydahl, search solution architect > Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com > Solr Training - www.solrtraining.com > > 15. feb. 2013 kl. 01:24 skrev Jan Høydahl <[email protected]>: > > >> but arbitrarily deciding an issue should be closed just becuase it's old > >> doesn't really make sense to me to me. > > > > That was never the suggestion either. More to get rid of all the noise > > which is no longer relevant, neither to the issue creator or anyone else, > > then it's easier to browse through open issues knowing that someone > > actually care about those issues being fixed. > > > > It's great that Erick and others will contribute, but we save a lot of work > > distributing it to "stakeholders" first, then those interested can manually > > go through the remaining based on the tag. > > > > The real number of irrelevant Open issues is probably larger, since some > > issues are "Updated" last year, but those updates are also Bulk fix-version > > change or similar, not real activity. But that's for another day... > > > > The bulk update process is fairly simple. I'll volunteer. I propose to > > simply add a "Comment" to those 739 issues (Unfortunately there seems to be > > no way to bulk ADD a "Label", it would delete all existing ones, so that's > > why it's in the comment text): > > > > > > This issue has been inactive for more than a year. Please close if it's no > > longer relevant/needed, or bring it up to date if you intend to work on it. > > INACTIVITY_REMINDER_20130215 > > > > > > Uwe, if it's simple to disconnect the mailinglist temporarily then that > > would be great. > > > > -- > > Jan Høydahl, search solution architect > > Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com > > Solr Training - www.solrtraining.com > > > > 14. feb. 2013 kl. 19:33 skrev Chris Hostetter <[email protected]>: > > > >> > >> : Why should an issue be closed just because it's been open for N years? > >> ... > >> : Why do we care about the number of open issues? Who is using this > >> metric? > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> Using a filter of "has not been modified in X days" to help find issues > >> that are *likeley* no longer relevant seems fine, and then they can > >> quickly be reviewed/closed if they are about code that no longer exists, > >> or have already been implemented/fixed in another way. > >> > >> but arbitrarily deciding an issue should be closed just becuase it's old > >> doesn't really make sense to me to me. > >> > >> > >> -Hoss > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
