Re: [DISCUSS] What to do about P0/P1/flake automation Was: P1 issues report (70)

Regarding P2s and P3s getting resolved as well: pretty much every healthy project has a backlog that grows without bound. So we do need a place to put that backlog. I think P3 is where things tend to end up, because P2s that do not receive a comment are automatically downgraded to P3. These may

Re: [DISCUSS] What to do about P0/P1/flake automation Was: P1 issues report (70)

Thanks, Danny! > On 24 Jun 2022, at 19:23, Danny McCormick wrote: > > Sure, I put up a fix - https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/22048 > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 1:20 PM Alexey Romanenko > wrote: > > >> > 2. The

Re: [DISCUSS] What to do about P0/P1/flake automation Was: P1 issues report (70)

> > 2. The links in this report start with api.github.* and don’t take us > > directly to the issues. > > > Yeah Danny pointed that out as well. I'm assuming he knows how to fix it? > > This is already fixed - Pablo actually beat me to it! > It

Re: [DISCUSS] What to do about P0/P1/flake automation Was: P1 issues report (70)

Sounds good! It’s like our internal reports of JIRA tickets exceeding SLA time and having no response from engineers. We either resolve them or downgrade the priority to extend time window. Besides, 1. P2 and P3 issues should be noticed and resolved as well. Shall we have a longer time window

Re: [DISCUSS] What to do about P0/P1/flake automation Was: P1 issues report (70)

Sounds good to me. Perhaps P0s > 36 hours ago (presumably they are more like ~hours for true outages of CI/website/etc) and P1s > 7 days? On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:27 PM Brian Hulette wrote: > I think that Danny's alternate proposal (a daily email that show only > issues last updated >7 days