List
Subject: Re: JIRA Cleanup
I changed the strategy slightly as I thought it might be crappy if the issue
was created 5 years ago, but the person updated it 2 months ago. So I took all
the issues that have not been updated in the last year and unassigned and
closed those out. Got to about
Thanks, I think it's the only sane way to try and help people.
On Jan 23, 2014, at 5:43 PM, Mirko Friedenhagen mfriedenha...@gmail.com wrote:
Jason,
the wiki page is a really good writeup and I like the strategy to force
reporters to create a simple project which will reproduce their issue.
Jason,
the wiki page is a really good writeup and I like the strategy to force
reporters to create a simple project which will reproduce their issue.
Regards
Mirko
--
Sent from my mobile
On Jan 23, 2014 3:33 AM, Jason van Zyl ja...@takari.io wrote:
I changed the strategy slightly as I thought
Ok, I'm going to pull the ripcord tonight (8 hours from now).
On Jan 21, 2014, at 9:19 PM, Jason van Zyl ja...@takari.io wrote:
So after looking at the issues more closely even at the 5 year-old mark there
are still too many. At the 2 year-old mark it's a bit more reasonable. If I
close all
I advise that we add a comment in each closing issue explaining that it was
closed specifically because it's more than 2 years old and to re-open it
only if it is still valid. Otherwise, it will look very rude to close a
ticket without an explanation.
BTW, what I just recommended was done by
Sure, good idea. I assume there's a relatively straight forward way to do that
with a bulk operation.
On Jan 22, 2014, at 12:09 PM, Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org wrote:
I advise that we add a comment in each closing issue explaining that it was
closed specifically because it's more than
Yup, it's very straight forward to add a comment to each of the issues that
will be closed. When I publish the accompanying documentation I can point the
comment at the documentation. Good call.
On Jan 22, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Jason van Zyl ja...@takari.io wrote:
Sure, good idea. I assume
I changed the strategy slightly as I thought it might be crappy if the issue
was created 5 years ago, but the person updated it 2 months ago. So I took all
the issues that have not been updated in the last year and unassigned and
closed those out. Got to about the same number and thought this
So after looking at the issues more closely even at the 5 year-old mark there
are still too many. At the 2 year-old mark it's a bit more reasonable. If I
close all issues older than 2 years-old which are not assigned thats 415 so we
would be left with 220 open issues which after a week or two I
If we are going wholesale dumping issues (and I am not against that), I
have a more radical suggestion... let's just move core to the ASF JIRA...
with next to no issues needing migration it would be easy ;-)
On 20 January 2014 17:23, Jason van Zyl ja...@takari.io wrote:
Really, it's more about
Am 2014-01-20 18:32, schrieb Stephen Connolly:
If we are going wholesale dumping issues (and I am not against that), I
have a more radical suggestion... let's just move core to the ASF JIRA...
with next to no issues needing migration it would be easy ;-)
+1
I head this idea in mind for
Am 2014-01-20 18:32, schrieb Stephen Connolly:
If we are going wholesale dumping issues (and I am not against that), I
have a more radical suggestion... let's just move core to the ASF JIRA...
with next to no issues needing migration it would be easy ;-)
+1
I head this idea in mind for
On Jan 20, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Stephen Connolly
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote:
If we are going wholesale dumping issues (and I am not against that), I
have a more radical suggestion... let's just move core to the ASF JIRA...
with next to no issues needing migration it would be easy
Works for me to just start over on the ASF JIRA. There are a couple issues I'd
move but we can migrate a issues easily. What can't continue is the complete,
incomprehensible mess that is there now.
On Jan 20, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Stephen Connolly
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote:
If we
+1 with a jira cleanup (but documented and announced to users to let them
understand what we do and why)
+1 to move to ASF
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Jason van Zyl ja...@takari.io wrote:
Works for me to just start over on the ASF JIRA. There are a couple issues
I'd move but we can
+1 cleanup is a really good idea!
On 20.01.2014, at 18:50, Arnaud Héritier aherit...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 with a jira cleanup (but documented and announced to users to let them
understand what we do and why)
+1 to move to ASF
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Jason van Zyl
+1 on clean up if we communicate this (and explain why).
0 on move
/Anders
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Dominik Bartholdi d...@fortysix.ch wrote:
+1 cleanup is a really good idea!
On 20.01.2014, at 18:50, Arnaud Héritier aherit...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 with a jira cleanup (but
+1 here.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Anders Hammar and...@hammar.net wrote:
+1 on clean up if we communicate this (and explain why).
0 on move
/Anders
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Dominik Bartholdi d...@fortysix.ch wrote:
+1 cleanup is a really good idea!
On 20.01.2014, at
Ok, I'll write something up and send it to the user and dev list.
On Jan 20, 2014, at 2:17 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 here.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Anders Hammar and...@hammar.net wrote:
+1 on clean up if we communicate this (and explain why).
0 on move
On 12/19/06, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hen:
MRM-207 Major POM error when indexing an m1 repositoryHenri
Yandell
MRM-208 Major Javadoc error while indexing m1 repository Henri
Yandell
Not sure when I'll retest them; but as it's based on test data on
20 matches
Mail list logo
