I agree with you Alessandro. Makes perfect sense for me, and that would be more realistic way to handle the issues.
- Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) 2016년 8월 18일 (목) 오전 11:46, Alessandro Bellina <abell...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid>님이 작성: > Just a contributors point of view.. > I think the idea to reclaim jiras that are assigned but without progress > is a good one. After that is done, in order to not end up in the same > place, I think after a task gets assigned it needs to be given a due date > (something sane), and updated periodically if it is a long task (e.g. port > nimbus). The policy being that if after the due date not meaningful > progress is made, then the assignment should be given away to someone else > or put back in the unassigned pile. > Port/merge issues which are assigned, but don't have "ASF GitHub" watching > them (so no PR it looks like): > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20labels%20in%20(java-migration%2C%20jstorm-merger)%20AND%20assignee%20!%3D%20EMPTY%20and%20watcher%20not%20in%20(%22ASF%20GitHub%20Bot%22) > I think freezing feature development in master is too extreme. Instead, I > think that as part of the code review checks, if we see changes to a file > and it is currently under a port task which isn't past due or stalled, then > the PR should be held back and submitter informed that the file they are > modifying is truly being ported. This, in turn, puts the ball back on the > court of the person doing the porting, as it should, and hopefully gives > the submitter a due date after which they can PR a ported change. If the > porting task is stalled, I see no reason why the PR shouldn't be considered > immediately. That said, something tells me this is hard to implement. > Thanks, > Alessandro > > > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 8:54 PM, Jungtaek Lim <kabh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I'm OK to stop feature dev. for storm-core on 1.x branch. As Taylor said > that was the original plan, and we broke it. > We even might need to stop feature development for storm-core on 'master' > if it touches un-ported files, but it would tend to break so I couldn't > claim that. > > Moreover, I propose unassigning all issues regarding port if pull request > is not open, and go on with 'no assignee' or 'competitive assignee' for > porting related issues. We had been set assignee for the issues, and > assignee holds it even though he/she can't or don't work on that for a long > time. > > Before stopping, I'd like to include STORM-2016 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2016> to 1.x version line. > (target for 1.1.0) > > - This will heavily affect to upcoming storm-sql improvements (I'd say that > without STORM-2016 we even have very hard time to launch storm-sql runner) > - This will help avoiding to copy libraries (and its transitive > dependencies) to extlib directory when it's necessary for only some of > topologies. Clear example is STORM-1881 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1881>. > - This will give great flexibility to configure user topology jar and > submit topology. > > Thanks, > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > 2016년 8월 17일 (수) 오후 11:58, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com>님이 작성: > > > I agree, and that was the original plan. > > > > However, the clojure to java migration stalled for a number of reasons > > (peoples’ $dayjob responsibilities can change often and affect the amount > > of time they have to contribute to the project — this is to be expected > and > > not considered a problem.). Prior to “feature freezing” the 1.x line, I > > think we should get 1.1.0 released. In my opinion the only remaining > issue > > for the release is a resolution to STORM-2006, particularly adding an > > interface for aggregated metrics. > > > > I don’t have a good feel for how long it will take to get the master > > branch (aka “2.0”) in a releasable state (again it comes down to > > contributor $dayjobs, which are largely out of anyone’s control). So I > > think we should plan on supporting 1.x for a while. > > > > -Taylor > > > > > On Aug 16, 2016, at 10:40 PM, Harsha Chintalapani <st...@harsha.io> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi All, > > > Currently we are undertaken JStorm merger and ongoing > migration > > > of existing Clojure code. I am proposing that we should stop any > feature > > > development for 1.x branch so that we can make progress on java > migration > > > and get it done before adding any further features. If any one > interested > > > adding features they can do so on master for 2.0. > > > This will give us time to complete the migration and keeps > the > > > core code more or less the same . Adding more code to core makes the > > > migration that much harder. > > > We should be ok on adding any connectors or so as that can be > independent > > > of core and can be easily added to master. > > > What you think? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Harsha > > > > > >
