On Oct 24, 2011, at 4:43 PM, Sean Owen wrote: > A closed JIRA isn't gone. It's still there and searchable. Marking it > WontFix with a note that it's open for reopening seems pretty clear to > future readers. I suppose we wouldn't know, but, I don't have a sense > that anyone has ever found a closed JIRA, wanted to work on it, but > given up because it was closed and they didn't read further. But I can > point to a hundred cases of the opposite.
You mean where it was left open too long and they didn't work on it? I'm not quite following your use of opposite here. Negating the previous sentence seems to imply they found open issues and worked on them, but I don't think that is what you meant. > > If we're just talking about what to call these states, that's good. > > The only thing I truly don't like is a false "open" state, the "I'd > like to think someone else will look at this" state. It seems like > it's pro-community and some type of useful work, but I think it's the > opposite. It's the kind of thing that discourages me personally, FWIW. Way back when, it used to bother me, too, but then I came to the conclusion it was the only way to capture user's interest in a reliable, structured way (as I laid out before) and it was also the only way people could really see what might be of interest for contributing and picking up the helm. That combined with the fact that time is limited and I can only control my own investments led me to being all right with it. I also subscribe to Yonik's law of patches: a half done patch is better than no patch at all, as it gives someone else a starting point. One thing we could do, however, is encourage people to vote for items they care about more and then each release we stack rank them and try to work through it as much as possible. This may help spur people as to what to focus on. > > Well, just leave the "Unversioned" tag as the bucket for everything > else. That's pretty good. I won't molest it; I might suggest we push > some things there. > > > Obviously the more important thing is to action some of the important > changes *that really should happen in a next release*, 0.6. Then file > some JIRAs for additional things that can and should be done in the > next month or so. > +1 > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> wrote: >> My first thought was what's the difference between open/unversioned, but >> then I think it does require an explicit move which means we've indicated >> we've looked at it. I do think this is a nice middle ground. >> >> >> On Oct 24, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov wrote: >> >>> I am really voting for a backlog target. most probably i won't >>> implement pca idea by end of december but it doesn't mean i am not >>> committed to see it thru. There probably will be some progress there >>> if only in form of working notes and some math and discussions. I need >>> this stuff to be peer reviewed. Why not have a 'backlog' target and >>> let it live there? >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Jake Mannix <jake.man...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Grant Ingersoll >>>> <gsing...@apache.org>wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > - Anything that isn't fixed by December is WontFix and we release 0.6. >>>>>> >>>>>> I realize it's drastic, but it's a coherent position. >>>>> >>>>> Not at all drastic and perfectly sane. >>>> >>>> >>>> So regarding JIRA management. I see that Benson and Sean come from >>>> a viewpoint that long-lived open JIRA tickets are a bad sign, while people >>>> like Grant, myself, and to some degree Ted, are used to seeing open tickets >>>> in an unresolved state that are used as placeholders which tell the outside >>>> observer what has been suggested in the past and what discussions have >>>> gone on around it, and maybe even has a (currently outdated) patch of >>>> a proposed solution. >>>> >>>> I'm really of the mind that WontFix is meant for "this idea does not fit at >>>> all / >>>> won't work / and we never intend to do this". Good ideas which we don't >>>> have the bandwidth for are instead unversioned and left open. I think >>>> WontFix on an "old ticket" sends a message to the person who opened it >>>> that we're not interested in their contribution, or if it's a bugfix, that >>>> we're >>>> arrogant and don't think they are correct in stating it's an important bug. >>>> >>>> I'd much rather we find an acceptable unresolved state than always push >>>> for "0 open JIRA tickets". The Hadoop community also has very long lived >>>> open tickets with slow progress, it's not just Lucene. I think this is >>>> healthy >>>> and a nice way to keep track of what people have thought about in the past. >>>> >>>> -jake >>>> >> >> -------------------------------------------- >> Grant Ingersoll >> http://www.lucidimagination.com >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------- Grant Ingersoll http://www.lucidimagination.com
