I agree as well. FWIW sometimes I've seen this happen due to language barriers, i.e. contributors whose primary language is not English, but we need more motivation for each change.
On July 29, 2014 at 5:12:01 PM, Nicholas Chammas (nicholas.cham...@gmail.com) wrote: +1 on using JIRA workflows to manage the backlog, and +9000 on having decent descriptions for all JIRA issues. On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > How about using a JIRA status like "Documentation Required" to mean > "burden's on you to elaborate with a motivation and/or PR". This could > both prompt people to do so, and also let one see when a JIRA has been > waiting on the reporter for months, rather than simply never been > looked at, and should thus time out and be closed. Both of these would > probably help the JIRA backlog. > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Mark Hamstra <m...@clearstorydata.com> > wrote: > > Of late, I've been coming across quite a few pull requests and associated > > JIRA issues that contain nothing indicating their purpose beyond a pretty > > minimal description of what the pull request does. On the pull request > > itself, a reference to the corresponding JIRA in the title combined with > a > > description that gives us a sketch of what the PR does is fine, but if > > there is no description in at least the JIRA of *why* you think some > change > > to Spark would be good, then it often makes getting started on code > reviews > > a little harder for those of us doing the reviews. So, I'm requesting > that > > if you are submitting a JIRA or pull request for something that isn't > > obviously a bug or bug fix, you please include some sort of motivation in > > at least the JIRA body so that the reviewers can more easily get through > > the head-scratching phase of trying to figure out why Spark might be > > improved by merging a pull request. >
