I tend to find that any large project has a lot of walking dead JIRAs, and pretending they are simply Open causes problems. Any state is better for these, so I favor this.
The possible objection is that this will squash or hide useful issues, but in practice we have the opposite problem. Resolved issues are still searchable by default, and, people aren't shy about opening duplicates anyway. At least the semantics Later do not discourage a diligent searcher from considering commenting on and reopening such an archived JIRA. Patrick this could piggy back on INFRA-9513. As a corollary I would welcome deciding that Target Version should be used more narrowly to mean 'I really mean to help resolve this for the indicated version'. Setting it to a future version just to mean Later should instead turn into resolving the JIRA. Last: if JIRAs are regularly ice-boxed this way, I think it should trigger some reflection. Why are these JIRAs going nowhere? For completely normal reasons or does it mean too many TODOs are filed and forgotten? That's no comment on the current state, just something to watch. So: yes I like the idea. On May 12, 2015 8:50 AM, "Patrick Wendell" <pwend...@gmail.com> wrote: > In Spark we sometimes close issues as something other than "Fixed", > and this is an important part of maintaining our JIRA. > > The current resolution types we use are the following: > > Won't Fix - bug fix or (more often) feature we don't want to add > Invalid - issue is underspecified or not appropriate for a JIRA issue > Duplicate - duplicate of another JIRA > Cannot Reproduce - bug that could not be reproduced > Not A Problem - issue purports to represent a bug, but does not > > I would like to propose adding a few new resolutions. This will > require modifying the ASF JIRA, but infra said they are open to > proposals as long as they are considered of broad interest. > > My issue with the current set of resolutions are that "Won't Fix" is a > big catch all we use for many different things. Most often it's used > for things that aren't even bugs even though it has "Fix" in the name. > I'm proposing adding: > > Inactive - A feature or bug that has had no activity from users or > developers in a long time > Out of Scope - A feature proposal that is not in scope given the projects > goals > Later - A feature not on the immediate roadmap, but potentially of > interest longer term (this one already exists, I'm just proposing to > start using it) > > I am in no way proposing changes to the decision making model around > JIRA's, notably that it is consensus based and that all resolutions > are considered tentative and fully reversible. > > The benefits I see of this change would be the following: > 1. Inactive: A way to clear out inactive/dead JIRA's without > indicating a decision has been made one way or the other. > 2. Out of Scope: It more clearly explains closing out-of-scope > features than the generic "Won't Fix". Also makes it more clear to > future contributors what is considered in scope for Spark. > 3. Later: A way to signal that issues aren't targeted for a near term > version. This would help avoid the mess we have now of like 200+ > issues targeted at each version and target version being a very bad > indicator of actual roadmap. An alternative on this one is to have a > version called "Later" or "Parking Lot" but not close the issues. > > Any thoughts on this? > > - Patrick > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org > >
