Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old

2014-04-21 Thread Bill Havanki
+1 to using Won't Fix. Won't can mean won't anytime soon. Labeling as
someday or wishlist or something sounds great to me. The tickets remain
in JIRA, so they can be resurrected if we change our minds or if an eager
contributor comes along. Nothing is lost.

I'll look into getting our ASF wiki space established if no one is doing so
already. This isn't the only time it's been proposed for use lately.

Thanks to David and everybody doing the spring cleaning.


On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Sean Busbey bus...@cloudera.com wrote:

 What do we want Jira to represent? I prefer it when projects use Jira as a
 work queue. If a feature request hasn't gotten interest in 2 years, it's
 very unlikely it will suddenly jump to the top of our priority list.

 I'm all for suggesting that requestors work on a patch and offering
 feedback to guide them. But if there isn't someone willing to do the work,
 the ticket is effectively wontfix. We should make sure there's a comment
 that explains that we're open to a feature if someone comes forward to do
 the work. We could also add a label so it's easier for the interested to
 find them.

 There is a cost to keeping these defunct tickets around. Old, untended
 tickets discourage new participants. They make us look unresponsive and
 they represent noise for those trying to look at what's going on.

 We do need a place for ideas we find interesting but don't have resources
 to handle yet. Many projects request that feature requests start on the
 mailing list to gauge interest. We could just do that, though the mail
 archive is neither super easy to search nor a convenient point of
 reference.

 Maybe this would be a good use of our ASF wiki space?


 On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Corey Nolet cjno...@gmail.com wrote:

  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 

Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old

2014-04-21 Thread John Vines
what about just changing them from being improvements to wishes?


On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Bill Havanki bhava...@clouderagovt.comwrote:

 +1 to using Won't Fix. Won't can mean won't anytime soon. Labeling as
 someday or wishlist or something sounds great to me. The tickets remain
 in JIRA, so they can be resurrected if we change our minds or if an eager
 contributor comes along. Nothing is lost.

 I'll look into getting our ASF wiki space established if no one is doing so
 already. This isn't the only time it's been proposed for use lately.

 Thanks to David and everybody doing the spring cleaning.


 On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Sean Busbey bus...@cloudera.com wrote:

  What do we want Jira to represent? I prefer it when projects use Jira as
 a
  work queue. If a feature request hasn't gotten interest in 2 years, it's
  very unlikely it will suddenly jump to the top of our priority list.
 
  I'm all for suggesting that requestors work on a patch and offering
  feedback to guide them. But if there isn't someone willing to do the
 work,
  the ticket is effectively wontfix. We should make sure there's a comment
  that explains that we're open to a feature if someone comes forward to do
  the work. We could also add a label so it's easier for the interested to
  find them.
 
  There is a cost to keeping these defunct tickets around. Old, untended
  tickets discourage new participants. They make us look unresponsive and
  they represent noise for those trying to look at what's going on.
 
  We do need a place for ideas we find interesting but don't have resources
  to handle yet. Many projects request that feature requests start on the
  mailing list to gauge interest. We could just do that, though the mail
  archive is neither super easy to search nor a convenient point of
  reference.
 
  Maybe this would be a good use of our ASF wiki space?
 
 
  On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Corey Nolet cjno...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   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:

 
 

  

Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old

2014-04-21 Thread Corey Nolet
+1
On Apr 21, 2014 11:47 AM, John Vines vi...@apache.org wrote:

 what about just changing them from being improvements to wishes?


 On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Bill Havanki bhava...@clouderagovt.com
 wrote:

  +1 to using Won't Fix. Won't can mean won't anytime soon. Labeling
 as
  someday or wishlist or something sounds great to me. The tickets
 remain
  in JIRA, so they can be resurrected if we change our minds or if an eager
  contributor comes along. Nothing is lost.
 
  I'll look into getting our ASF wiki space established if no one is doing
 so
  already. This isn't the only time it's been proposed for use lately.
 
  Thanks to David and everybody doing the spring cleaning.
 
 
  On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Sean Busbey bus...@cloudera.com
 wrote:
 
   What do we want Jira to represent? I prefer it when projects use Jira
 as
  a
   work queue. If a feature request hasn't gotten interest in 2 years,
 it's
   very unlikely it will suddenly jump to the top of our priority list.
  
   I'm all for suggesting that requestors work on a patch and offering
   feedback to guide them. But if there isn't someone willing to do the
  work,
   the ticket is effectively wontfix. We should make sure there's a
 comment
   that explains that we're open to a feature if someone comes forward to
 do
   the work. We could also add a label so it's easier for the interested
 to
   find them.
  
   There is a cost to keeping these defunct tickets around. Old, untended
   tickets discourage new participants. They make us look unresponsive and
   they represent noise for those trying to look at what's going on.
  
   We do need a place for ideas we find interesting but don't have
 resources
   to handle yet. Many projects request that feature requests start on the
   mailing list to gauge interest. We could just do that, though the mail
   archive is neither super easy to search nor a convenient point of
   reference.
  
   Maybe this would be a good use of our ASF wiki space?
  
  
   On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Corey Nolet cjno...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  
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.
 
 
 

   
  
 

   
  
 
 

Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old

2014-04-21 Thread Corey Nolet
+1 I thought proposal would be good enough to convey the message. Wont
fix is confusing and I could see possible contributors being starred away
by it.
On Apr 21, 2014 1:04 PM, cjno...@gmail.com wrote:

 +1
 On Apr 21, 2014 11:47 AM, John Vines vi...@apache.org wrote:

 what about just changing them from being improvements to wishes?


 On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Bill Havanki bhava...@clouderagovt.com
 wrote:

  +1 to using Won't Fix. Won't can mean won't anytime soon.
 Labeling as
  someday or wishlist or something sounds great to me. The tickets
 remain
  in JIRA, so they can be resurrected if we change our minds or if an
 eager
  contributor comes along. Nothing is lost.
 
  I'll look into getting our ASF wiki space established if no one is
 doing so
  already. This isn't the only time it's been proposed for use lately.
 
  Thanks to David and everybody doing the spring cleaning.
 
 
  On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Sean Busbey bus...@cloudera.com
 wrote:
 
   What do we want Jira to represent? I prefer it when projects use Jira
 as
  a
   work queue. If a feature request hasn't gotten interest in 2 years,
 it's
   very unlikely it will suddenly jump to the top of our priority list.
  
   I'm all for suggesting that requestors work on a patch and offering
   feedback to guide them. But if there isn't someone willing to do the
  work,
   the ticket is effectively wontfix. We should make sure there's a
 comment
   that explains that we're open to a feature if someone comes forward
 to do
   the work. We could also add a label so it's easier for the interested
 to
   find them.
  
   There is a cost to keeping these defunct tickets around. Old, untended
   tickets discourage new participants. They make us look unresponsive
 and
   they represent noise for those trying to look at what's going on.
  
   We do need a place for ideas we find interesting but don't have
 resources
   to handle yet. Many projects request that feature requests start on
 the
   mailing list to gauge interest. We could just do that, though the mail
   archive is neither super easy to search nor a convenient point of
   reference.
  
   Maybe this would be a good use of our ASF wiki space?
  
  
   On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Corey Nolet cjno...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  
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.
 
 
 

  

Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old

2014-04-21 Thread Sean Busbey
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Corey Nolet cjno...@gmail.com wrote:

 +1 I thought proposal would be good enough to convey the message. Wont
 fix is confusing and I could see possible contributors being starred away
 by it.


What about with a final comment that says something like:

Unfortunately, we don't have any spare cycles to handle an implementation
for this request. If anyone would like to take on championing this feature,
please reopen the ticket and ask to have it assigned to you.

Even then you think the won't fix label will scare them away? What about
closing them incomplete?

-- 
Sean


Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old

2014-04-21 Thread Christopher
Perhaps (hence my caveat with regard to whether the fact of a ticket
being open is problematic). Since it's reversible, Won't Fix can
easily be interpreted as Won't Fix at this time. It could always be
reopened, if we decide there's more value in not having open tickets.

To avoid possibly deterring volunteers, we could easily document why
we won't fix (eg. Won't Fix, low priority, little interest; reopen if
interest resurges).


--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 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?
 

   
  
 



Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old

2014-04-20 Thread Sean Busbey
What do we want Jira to represent? I prefer it when projects use Jira as a
work queue. If a feature request hasn't gotten interest in 2 years, it's
very unlikely it will suddenly jump to the top of our priority list.

I'm all for suggesting that requestors work on a patch and offering
feedback to guide them. But if there isn't someone willing to do the work,
the ticket is effectively wontfix. We should make sure there's a comment
that explains that we're open to a feature if someone comes forward to do
the work. We could also add a label so it's easier for the interested to
find them.

There is a cost to keeping these defunct tickets around. Old, untended
tickets discourage new participants. They make us look unresponsive and
they represent noise for those trying to look at what's going on.

We do need a place for ideas we find interesting but don't have resources
to handle yet. Many projects request that feature requests start on the
mailing list to gauge interest. We could just do that, though the mail
archive is neither super easy to search nor a convenient point of reference.

Maybe this would be a good use of our ASF wiki space?


On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Corey Nolet cjno...@gmail.com wrote:

 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?
   
  
 

   
  
 




-- 
Sean


Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old

2014-04-19 Thread Mike Drob
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

2014-04-19 Thread Corey Nolet
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

2014-04-19 Thread David Medinets
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

2014-04-19 Thread John Vines
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

2014-04-19 Thread Christopher
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

2014-04-19 Thread John Vines
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

2014-04-19 Thread Corey Nolet
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?
  
 

   
  
 



Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old

2014-04-18 Thread David Medinets
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

2014-04-18 Thread Sean Busbey
+1

Actually. Anything with out a fixVersion in 1.5+ should be flagged to make
sure it's still an issue.

-- 
Sean
On Apr 18, 2014 11:03 PM, 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?