Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Deleting tickets is a no-no, but flagging them is certainly fine. On Apr 19, 2014 12:03 AM, David Medinets david.medin...@gmail.com wrote: Opps. Sorry, I did my filtering badly. There are 68 tickets over 2 years old. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-18?jql=project%20%3D%20ACCUMULO%20AND%20status%20in%20%28Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened%2C%20%22Patch%20Available%22%29%20AND%20created%20%3C%3D%20-104w%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20ASC On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:01 AM, David Medinets david.medin...@gmail.comwrote: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-551?jql=project%20%3D%20ACCUMULO%20AND%20created%20%3C%3D%20-104w%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC Is there a technique we can use to curate old tickets? Would anyone mind if I review them and nominate tickets for closure? I can add a message and delete any tickets that don't provoke a response. How useful are tickets that are two years old?
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Some of these tickets still look like very valid feature/integration requests that would still be reasonable to have. See ACCUMULO-74, ACCUMULO-143, ACCUMULO-136, ACCUMULO-211, ACCUMULO-483, ACCUMULO-490, ACCUMULO-508 On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Mike Drob md...@mdrob.com wrote: Deleting tickets is a no-no, but flagging them is certainly fine. On Apr 19, 2014 12:03 AM, David Medinets david.medin...@gmail.com wrote: Opps. Sorry, I did my filtering badly. There are 68 tickets over 2 years old. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-18?jql=project%20%3D%20ACCUMULO%20AND%20status%20in%20%28Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened%2C%20%22Patch%20Available%22%29%20AND%20created%20%3C%3D%20-104w%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20ASC On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:01 AM, David Medinets david.medin...@gmail.comwrote: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-551?jql=project%20%3D%20ACCUMULO%20AND%20created%20%3C%3D%20-104w%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC Is there a technique we can use to curate old tickets? Would anyone mind if I review them and nominate tickets for closure? I can add a message and delete any tickets that don't provoke a response. How useful are tickets that are two years old?
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
ACCUMULO-483 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-483, for example, involves creating a purge locality utility. However, there have been no comments since Oct 2012. If the feature has not risen in priority since then, how will it become more important in the future. Perhaps a 'good ideas' page or 'roadmap' page could be added to http://accumulo.apache.org/? I don't see a benefit to keeping these old tickets. On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Corey Nolet cjno...@gmail.com wrote: Some of these tickets still look like very valid feature/integration requests that would still be reasonable to have. See ACCUMULO-74, ACCUMULO-143, ACCUMULO-136, ACCUMULO-211, ACCUMULO-483, ACCUMULO-490, ACCUMULO-508 On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Mike Drob md...@mdrob.com wrote: Deleting tickets is a no-no, but flagging them is certainly fine. On Apr 19, 2014 12:03 AM, David Medinets david.medin...@gmail.com wrote: Opps. Sorry, I did my filtering badly. There are 68 tickets over 2 years old. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-18?jql=project%20%3D%20ACCUMULO%20AND%20status%20in%20%28Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened%2C%20%22Patch%20Available%22%29%20AND%20created%20%3C%3D%20-104w%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20ASC On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:01 AM, David Medinets david.medin...@gmail.comwrote: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-551?jql=project%20%3D%20ACCUMULO%20AND%20created%20%3C%3D%20-104w%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC Is there a technique we can use to curate old tickets? Would anyone mind if I review them and nominate tickets for closure? I can add a message and delete any tickets that don't provoke a response. How useful are tickets that are two years old?
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Just because they're old doesn't make them invalid. They're just at a lower priority. Closing them for the sake of closing them seems like a bad idea. But if they're actually invalid now, that's an entirely different notion. Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity. On Apr 19, 2014 12:42 PM, David Medinets david.medin...@gmail.com wrote: ACCUMULO-483 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-483, for example, involves creating a purge locality utility. However, there have been no comments since Oct 2012. If the feature has not risen in priority since then, how will it become more important in the future. Perhaps a 'good ideas' page or 'roadmap' page could be added to http://accumulo.apache.org/? I don't see a benefit to keeping these old tickets. On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Corey Nolet cjno...@gmail.com wrote: Some of these tickets still look like very valid feature/integration requests that would still be reasonable to have. See ACCUMULO-74, ACCUMULO-143, ACCUMULO-136, ACCUMULO-211, ACCUMULO-483, ACCUMULO-490, ACCUMULO-508 On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Mike Drob md...@mdrob.com wrote: Deleting tickets is a no-no, but flagging them is certainly fine. On Apr 19, 2014 12:03 AM, David Medinets david.medin...@gmail.com wrote: Opps. Sorry, I did my filtering badly. There are 68 tickets over 2 years old. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-18?jql=project%20%3D%20ACCUMULO%20AND%20status%20in%20%28Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened%2C%20%22Patch%20Available%22%29%20AND%20created%20%3C%3D%20-104w%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20ASC On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:01 AM, David Medinets david.medin...@gmail.comwrote: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-551?jql=project%20%3D%20ACCUMULO%20AND%20created%20%3C%3D%20-104w%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC Is there a technique we can use to curate old tickets? Would anyone mind if I review them and nominate tickets for closure? I can add a message and delete any tickets that don't provoke a response. How useful are tickets that are two years old?
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Resolving them as Won't Fix seems valid to me, if the fact that a ticket is open helps us track/manage outstanding work. (The obvious question, then, is does it help in some way?). They can always be re-opened if we decide it's worth doing. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 1:05 PM, John Vines vi...@apache.org wrote: Just because they're old doesn't make them invalid. They're just at a lower priority. Closing them for the sake of closing them seems like a bad idea. But if they're actually invalid now, that's an entirely different notion. Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity. On Apr 19, 2014 12:42 PM, David Medinets david.medin...@gmail.com wrote: ACCUMULO-483 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-483, for example, involves creating a purge locality utility. However, there have been no comments since Oct 2012. If the feature has not risen in priority since then, how will it become more important in the future. Perhaps a 'good ideas' page or 'roadmap' page could be added to http://accumulo.apache.org/? I don't see a benefit to keeping these old tickets. On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Corey Nolet cjno...@gmail.com wrote: Some of these tickets still look like very valid feature/integration requests that would still be reasonable to have. See ACCUMULO-74, ACCUMULO-143, ACCUMULO-136, ACCUMULO-211, ACCUMULO-483, ACCUMULO-490, ACCUMULO-508 On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Mike Drob md...@mdrob.com wrote: Deleting tickets is a no-no, but flagging them is certainly fine. On Apr 19, 2014 12:03 AM, David Medinets david.medin...@gmail.com wrote: Opps. Sorry, I did my filtering badly. There are 68 tickets over 2 years old. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-18?jql=project%20%3D%20ACCUMULO%20AND%20status%20in%20%28Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened%2C%20%22Patch%20Available%22%29%20AND%20created%20%3C%3D%20-104w%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20ASC On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:01 AM, David Medinets david.medin...@gmail.comwrote: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-551?jql=project%20%3D%20ACCUMULO%20AND%20created%20%3C%3D%20-104w%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC Is there a technique we can use to curate old tickets? Would anyone mind if I review them and nominate tickets for closure? I can add a message and delete any tickets that don't provoke a response. How useful are tickets that are two years old?
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
Won't fix isn't accurate though. We're not saying we will reject work on them, they're just not a high priority. On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote: Resolving them as Won't Fix seems valid to me, if the fact that a ticket is open helps us track/manage outstanding work. (The obvious question, then, is does it help in some way?). They can always be re-opened if we decide it's worth doing. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 1:05 PM, John Vines vi...@apache.org wrote: Just because they're old doesn't make them invalid. They're just at a lower priority. Closing them for the sake of closing them seems like a bad idea. But if they're actually invalid now, that's an entirely different notion. Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity. On Apr 19, 2014 12:42 PM, David Medinets david.medin...@gmail.com wrote: ACCUMULO-483 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-483, for example, involves creating a purge locality utility. However, there have been no comments since Oct 2012. If the feature has not risen in priority since then, how will it become more important in the future. Perhaps a 'good ideas' page or 'roadmap' page could be added to http://accumulo.apache.org/? I don't see a benefit to keeping these old tickets. On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Corey Nolet cjno...@gmail.com wrote: Some of these tickets still look like very valid feature/integration requests that would still be reasonable to have. See ACCUMULO-74, ACCUMULO-143, ACCUMULO-136, ACCUMULO-211, ACCUMULO-483, ACCUMULO-490, ACCUMULO-508 On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Mike Drob md...@mdrob.com wrote: Deleting tickets is a no-no, but flagging them is certainly fine. On Apr 19, 2014 12:03 AM, David Medinets david.medin...@gmail.com wrote: Opps. Sorry, I did my filtering badly. There are 68 tickets over 2 years old. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-18?jql=project%20%3D%20ACCUMULO%20AND%20status%20in%20%28Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened%2C%20%22Patch%20Available%22%29%20AND%20created%20%3C%3D%20-104w%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20ASC On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:01 AM, David Medinets david.medin...@gmail.comwrote: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-551?jql=project%20%3D%20ACCUMULO%20AND%20created%20%3C%3D%20-104w%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC Is there a technique we can use to curate old tickets? Would anyone mind if I review them and nominate tickets for closure? I can add a message and delete any tickets that don't provoke a response. How useful are tickets that are two years old?
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
I agree. Are those tickets really getting in the way? Maybe they could be labeled differently to separate them from tech debt, bugs, and other active features? On Apr 19, 2014 3:51 PM, John Vines vi...@apache.org wrote: Won't fix isn't accurate though. We're not saying we will reject work on them, they're just not a high priority. On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote: Resolving them as Won't Fix seems valid to me, if the fact that a ticket is open helps us track/manage outstanding work. (The obvious question, then, is does it help in some way?). They can always be re-opened if we decide it's worth doing. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 1:05 PM, John Vines vi...@apache.org wrote: Just because they're old doesn't make them invalid. They're just at a lower priority. Closing them for the sake of closing them seems like a bad idea. But if they're actually invalid now, that's an entirely different notion. Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity. On Apr 19, 2014 12:42 PM, David Medinets david.medin...@gmail.com wrote: ACCUMULO-483 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-483, for example, involves creating a purge locality utility. However, there have been no comments since Oct 2012. If the feature has not risen in priority since then, how will it become more important in the future. Perhaps a 'good ideas' page or 'roadmap' page could be added to http://accumulo.apache.org/? I don't see a benefit to keeping these old tickets. On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Corey Nolet cjno...@gmail.com wrote: Some of these tickets still look like very valid feature/integration requests that would still be reasonable to have. See ACCUMULO-74, ACCUMULO-143, ACCUMULO-136, ACCUMULO-211, ACCUMULO-483, ACCUMULO-490, ACCUMULO-508 On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Mike Drob md...@mdrob.com wrote: Deleting tickets is a no-no, but flagging them is certainly fine. On Apr 19, 2014 12:03 AM, David Medinets david.medin...@gmail.com wrote: Opps. Sorry, I did my filtering badly. There are 68 tickets over 2 years old. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-18?jql=project%20%3D%20ACCUMULO%20AND%20status%20in%20%28Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened%2C%20%22Patch%20Available%22%29%20AND%20created%20%3C%3D%20-104w%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20ASC On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:01 AM, David Medinets david.medin...@gmail.comwrote: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-551?jql=project%20%3D%20ACCUMULO%20AND%20created%20%3C%3D%20-104w%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC Is there a technique we can use to curate old tickets? Would anyone mind if I review them and nominate tickets for closure? I can add a message and delete any tickets that don't provoke a response. How useful are tickets that are two years old?
