Hi Edy, On Oct 3, 2012, at 10:00 PM, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 3, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I agree with Edy. For me "Future" means "reviewed and not planned for >>> any time soon". >> >> The problem is not the meaning; we understand why we introduced it... >> >> Can you explain to me how you've been using it? >> >> If you check current stats you'll see some marked "future" and the vast >> majority not scheduled. The reason is that we're not using it and honestly >> I have no clue how to use it properly because once you mark one as future >> what do you do with it? >> >> I imagined that, before Roadmap meetings for the next release/cycle, you > go trough the (publicly available) list of issues marked as 'Future' and > consider them to be high priority since they are in the "queue". If you did > not do that until now and do not plan to do it, then sure, it's useless. Well, there's no such thing as a "roadmap meeting" in this community ;) All we have is a Roadmap email proposal to which developers respond telling what they want to work on. What I usually do to speed up the process is have an internal meeting with committers who are also part of the XWiki SAS company (since I'm also from XWiki SAS) and get to an agreement to what we wish to work on and in my proposal mail I list stuff we've agreed to work on. The idea is then that other committers not part of XWiki SAS also join in and add what they'd like to work on on their side. >From the community point of view, what developers choose to work on is their >own choice. > How else do you/we keep track of important issues across time/versions? We don't have any mechanism for prioritizing our issues and I'm not sure we need one in the community (it would extremely difficult to agree on a metric IMO). Usually open source is about people having an itch to scratch. Now if users want to bring attention of devs to their issues they can do the following: * open a jira issue and kindly ping about it after some time if no progress is made (even better provide a pull request ;)) * vote on a jira issue * send an email to the list and kindly ping about it regularly if no answer is provided * answer to emails about feature surveys * fill the xwiki.org questionnaires * pay someone to work on their issue (we have a professional support section on xwiki.org) > I > don`t imagine that a personal list would be the solution for the whole > (public) open source project. > > The current approach (with the 'Future' marker) still seems to me to be an > uncomplicated solution to this problem. I don`t even feel the need for the > NEW and OPEN markers as Sergiu suggested, since we have "In Progress" and > "Future" to differentiate between actively or "passively" working on an > issue. Also, there is the "Assigned" field that represents the fact that a > *committer* is engaged to fix the issue (can be at his own will) and there > is the 'Future' version that represents that the *community/project* is > engaged in fixing the issue as soon as possible, even if there is currently > no assigned committer. Without such a marker, our reporters might get a > sense of abandonment if they see no activity on their issue. > > Anyway, that's all I had to say on the matter. Maybe your experience with > issue/roadmap management is more likely to be correct compared with my > above judgement. I think the difference is maybe that you seem to feel that we need to prioritize issues. I'm not sure how we would do that (what algorithm?) and even if we did that I'm not sure how we'd "force" committers to implement them in the priority order ;) (and if they don't then the priority order doesn't mean much). Now if you have some ideas please bring them on! I'm sure we can improve what we're doing :) Thanks -Vincent > Thanks, > Eduard > >> And since we don't have more visibility than the current release there's >> no way to decide further than that if it's planned for the current release >> then we set the fixfor for the current release... >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >>> Thanks, >>> Marius >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>> I don`t know, for me it`s good to be able to see which issues are in our >>>> "queue", besides the great sea of not yet processed issues :) I agree >> that >>>> we don`t use it much, but I would not go as far as to remove it, so I`m >> -0. >>>> >>>> What happens to issues we discuss/tackle, but don`t manage to >>>> finish/implement them on time? Do we throw them back into the sea >> (instead >>>> of putting them aside for 'Future')? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Eduard >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi devs, >>>>> >>>>> It seems we've never really used the "future' version in jira. I'd like >>>>> like to propose to remove it. >>>>> >>>>> The idea was that issues that had been reviewed and marked for later >> were >>>>> supposed to use "future" but in practice we are not doing it. >>>>> >>>>> WDYT? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
