On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Santiago Mola <sm...@stratio.com> wrote: >> Inactive - A feature or bug that has had no activity from users or >> developers in a long time > > Why is this needed? Every JIRA listing can be sorted by activity. That gets > the inactive ones out of your view quickly. I do not see any reason why an > issue should be closed because of this. If it's inactive, maybe it's because > it falls on some of the other categories (out of scope, later, won't fix).
I don't think sorting helps or that browsing is the issue. What if you're searching for Open Critical issues concerning Pyspark? If the list is full of issues that are actually out of scope, later, won't fix, then that's a problem. > That is a much more specific case than "Inactivity", and a lot of large scale > open source projects use specific resolutions for this. Yes, that's "CannotReproduce". I think the walking-dead JIRAs we have in mind are some combination of: a JIRA opened without a lot of detail, that might or might not be a problem, nobody else seemed to have the problem and/or nobody cared to investigate, much has changed since anyway so might be obsolete. WontFix, CannotReproduce, NotAProblem are all possibly reasonable resolutions. If this is just about semantics, I also don't feel a strong need for a new state. > On a more general note: what is the problem with open issues / pull requests? > I see a tendency in the Spark project to do unusual things with issues / PRs > just to maintain the numbers low. For example, closing PRs after a couple of > weeks of inactivity just to shrink the queue or closing active issues just > for the > shake of it. > > Honestly, this looks a lot like trying to game metrics. But maybe there is > something that I am missing. Game for whose benefit? nobody is being evaluated on this stuff. This is being proposed for real reasons, not for fun. A bunch of JIRA cruft is a symptom, not a cause. Something is wrong somewhere if people file JIRAs and they go nowhere. Everyone's time is wasted and with no conclusion, there's no feedback or learning anywhere. So it keeps happening. Is it bad JIRAs? scope issues? lack of follow up from developer or contributor? all of the above? I actually think it's mostly bad JIRAs: too large, too invasive, not that useful, hacky fixes to a facet of a problem, incomplete description, duplicate, etc. I think it's more useful to actually close these to communicate back clearly what is not going to be accepted. Things can be reopened if needed. Silently ignoring them forever as an Open JIRA seems less constructive. > Maybe what it is actually needed is to improve the lifecycle of an issue while > it is alive, instead of trying to kill it earlier. Some examples of this that > are > used on other projects are the "incomplete" status to signal that there is > more > info required from the reporter in order to take further action. Also > "confirmed" > to acknowledge that a bug is confirmed to be present and needs action by > a developer. Yes, best to try to make the process better. That's why I started with things like a more comprehensive https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SPARK/Contributing+to+Spark to make better contributions in the first place. By the time dead JIRAs are closed, something's already gone wrong and time has been wasted. But we still need that culture of not letting stuff sit around. I don't mind the idea of an Unresolved "InformationNeeded" status, yeah. I don't actually think that would solve a problem though. The dead JIRAs are ones that never got any follow up, or, that got a lot of follow-up from the contributor but aren't going to be merged. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
