Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
+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
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
+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
+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
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
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
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
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?
Re: 551 JIRA Tickets Over 2 Years Old
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
+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?
