Very sorry for the delayed response. Regarding tickets with the "test-instability" label (topic 1): I'm usually assigning a fixVersion to the next release of the branch where the failure occurred, when I'm opening a test failure ticket. Others seem to do that too. Hence my comment that not checking tickets with a fixVersion set by Flink bot is good (because test failures should always stay "Critical" until we've understood what's going on) I see that it is a bit contradicting that Critical test instabilities receive no attention for 14 days, but that seems to be the norm given the current number of incoming test instabilities.
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 2:05 PM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote: > Another example for category 4 would be the ticket where we collect > breaking API changes for Flink 2.0 [1]. The idea behind this ticket is to > collect things to consider when developing the next major version. > Admittedly, we have never seen the benefits of collecting the breaking > changes because we haven't started Flink 2.x yet. Also, it is not clear how > relevant these tickets are right now. > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3957 > > Cheers, > Till > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:42 AM Konstantin Knauf <kna...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > thank you for all the feedback so far. I believe we have four different > > topics by now: > > > > 1 about *test-instability tickets* raised by Robert. Waiting for feedback > > by Robert. > > > > 2 about *aggressiveness of stale-assigned *rule raised by Timo. Waiting > > for feedback by Timo and others. > > > > 3 about *excluding issues with a fixVersion* raised by Konstantin, Till. > > Waiting for more feedback by the community as it involves general changes > > to how we deal with fixVersion. > > > > 4 about *excluding issues with a specific-label* raised by Arvid. > > > > I've already written something about 1-3. Regarding 4: > > > > How do we make sure that these don't become stale? I think, there have > > been a few "long-term efforts" in the past that never got the attention > > that we initially wanted. Is this just about the ability to collect > tickets > > under an umbrella to document a future effort? Maybe for the example of > > DataStream replacing DataSet how would this look like in Jira? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Konstantin > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 11:31 AM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> I like this idea. It would then be the responsibility of the component > >> maintainers to manage the lifecycle explicitly. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Till > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 1:48 PM Arvid Heise <ar...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> > One more idea for the bot. Could we have a label to exclude certain > >> tickets > >> > from the life-cycle? > >> > > >> > I'm thinking about long-term tickets such as improving DataStream to > >> > eventually replace DataSet. We would collect ideas over the next > couple > >> of > >> > weeks without any visible progress on the implementation. > >> > > >> > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 2:06 PM Konstantin Knauf <kna...@apache.org> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hi Timo, > >> > > > >> > > Thanks for joining the discussion. All rules except the unassigned > >> rule > >> > do > >> > > not apply to Sub-Tasks actually (like deprioritization, closing). > >> > > Additionally, activity on a Sub-Taks counts as activity for the > >> parent. > >> > So, > >> > > the parent ticket would not be touched by the bot as long as there > is > >> a > >> > > single Sub-Task that has a discussion or an update. If you > experience > >> > > something different, this is a bug. > >> > > > >> > > Is there a reason why it is important to assign all Sub-Tasks to the > >> same > >> > > person immediately? I am not sure if this kind "reserving tickets" > is > >> a > >> > > good idea in general to be honest. > >> > > > >> > > Cheers, > >> > > > >> > > Konstantin > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:00 PM Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Hi Konstantin, > >> > > > > >> > > > thanks for starting this discussion. I was also about to provide > >> some > >> > > > feedback because I have the feeling that the bot is too aggressive > >> at > >> > > > the moment. > >> > > > > >> > > > Even a 14 days interval is a short period of time for bigger > efforts > >> > > > that might include several subtasks. Currently, if we split an > issue > >> > > > into subtasks usually most subtasks are assigned to the same > person. > >> > But > >> > > > the bot requires us to update all subtasks again after 7 days. > >> Could we > >> > > > disable the bot for subtasks or extend the period to 30 days? > >> > > > > >> > > > The core problem in the past was that we had issues laying around > >> > > > untouched for years. Luckily, this is solved with the bot now. But > >> > going > >> > > > from years to 7 days spams the mail box quite a bit. > >> > > > > >> > > > Regards, > >> > > > Timo > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On 21.05.21 09:22, Konstantin Knauf wrote: > >> > > > > Hi Robert, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Could you elaborate on your comment on test instabilities? Would > >> test > >> > > > > instabilities always get a fixVersion then? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Background: Test instabilities are supposed to be Critical. > >> Critical > >> > > > > tickets are deprioritized if they are unassigned and have not > >> > received > >> > > an > >> > > > > update for 14 days. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Cheers, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Konstantin > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 9:34 AM Robert Metzger < > >> rmetz...@apache.org> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> +1 > >> > > > >> This would also cover test instabilities, which I personally > >> believe > >> > > > should > >> > > > >> not be auto-deprioritized until they've been analyzed. > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 1:46 PM Till Rohrmann < > >> trohrm...@apache.org > >> > > > >> > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> I like this idea. +1 for your proposal Konstantin. > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> Cheers, > >> > > > >>> Till > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 1:30 PM Konstantin Knauf < > >> > > > >> konstan...@ververica.com > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>> wrote: > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>>> Hi everyone, > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> Till and I recently discussed whether we should disable the > >> > > > >>>> "stale-blocker", "stale-critical", "stale-major" and > >> "stale-minor" > >> > > > >> rules > >> > > > >>>> for tickets that have a fixVersion set. This would allow > >> people to > >> > > > plan > >> > > > >>> the > >> > > > >>>> upcoming release without tickets being deprioritized by the > bot > >> > > during > >> > > > >>> the > >> > > > >>>> release cycle. > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> From my point of view, this is a good idea as long as we can > >> > agree > >> > > to > >> > > > >> use > >> > > > >>>> the "fixVersion" a bit more conservatively. What do I mean by > >> > that? > >> > > If > >> > > > >>> you > >> > > > >>>> would categorize tickets planned for an upcoming release > into: > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> * Must Have > >> > > > >>>> * Should Have > >> > > > >>>> * Nice-To-Have > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> only "Must Have" and "Should Have" tickets should get a > >> > fixVersion. > >> > > > >> From > >> > > > >>> my > >> > > > >>>> observation, we currently often set the fixVersion if we just > >> > > wished a > >> > > > >>>> feature was included in an upcoming release. Similarly, I > often > >> > see > >> > > > >> bulk > >> > > > >>>> changes of fixVersion that "roll over" many tickets to the > next > >> > > > release > >> > > > >>> if > >> > > > >>>> they have not made into the previous release although there > is > >> no > >> > > > >>> concrete > >> > > > >>>> plan to fix them or they have even become obsolete by then. > >> > > Excluding > >> > > > >>> those > >> > > > >>>> from the bot would be counterproductive. > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> What do you think? > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> Cheers, > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> Konstantin > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 2:25 PM Konstantin Knauf < > >> > kna...@apache.org > >> > > > > >> > > > >>>> wrote: > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>>> Hi everyone, > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> After some offline conversations, I think, it makes sense to > >> > > already > >> > > > >>> open > >> > > > >>>>> this thread now in order to collect feedback and suggestions > >> > around > >> > > > >> the > >> > > > >>>>> Jira Bot. > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> The following two changes I will do right away: > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> * increase "stale-assigned.stale-days" to 14 days (Marta, > >> > Stephan, > >> > > > >> Nico > >> > > > >>>>> have provided feedback that this is too aggressive). > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> * exclude Sub-Tasks from all rules except the > "stale-assigned" > >> > rule > >> > > > >> (I > >> > > > >>>>> think, this was just an oversight in the original > discussion.) > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> Keep it coming. > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> Cheers, > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> Konstantin > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> -- > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> Konstantin Knauf > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> https://twitter.com/snntrable > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> https://github.com/knaufk > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> -- > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> Konstantin Knauf | Head of Product > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> +49 160 91394525 > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> Follow us @VervericaData Ververica < > https://www.ververica.com/ > >> > > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> -- > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> Join Flink Forward <https://flink-forward.org/> - The Apache > >> > Flink > >> > > > >>>> Conference > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> Stream Processing | Event Driven | Real Time > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> -- > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> -- > >> > > > >>>> Ververica GmbH > >> > > > >>>> Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B > >> > > > >>>> Managing Directors: Yip Park Tung Jason, Jinwei (Kevin) > Zhang, > >> > Karl > >> > > > >> Anton > >> > > > >>>> Wehner > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > > >> > > Konstantin Knauf > >> > > > >> > > https://twitter.com/snntrable > >> > > > >> > > https://github.com/knaufk > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > Konstantin Knauf > > > > https://twitter.com/snntrable > > > > https://github.com/knaufk > > >
