On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 9:37 AM Edward Capriolo <[email protected]> wrote:
> I like it. But its only book keeping. Obviously you can sort by age. > > Imho. I think it is impossible to police the long tail. > Why do you have to crush my dreams? Joking aside, I don't want to sift through thousands of outdated issues when prioritizing what needs attention. > > Imho: > Why not police the patch available? > > There are 361 of these. We should reduce this number. I'd like to improve focus by dropping very old patches that don't apply and may no longer be the right thing to do. > I have 3/4 tickets patch available. > > Use patch available as the signal. If tickets are patch available all tests > pass, Why aren't they merged? > > Too many in patch available that are junk? > Make dedicated effort to triage them better.. > Too many good patches not being merged? > Make dedicated effort to bring to 0, more reviewers ai review, more build > slots. > > We clearly need to improve here. This is a common problem in open-source projects though. Ultimately people need to be paid to spend the time it takes to do proper reviews. There are a lot of tricky bits of code and the context required to correctly review them is significant. This code has a ton of surface area and integrations with other projects, along with accumulated tech debt. A small regression can cause huge issues for customers including data loss, corruption, service unavilability. This is not an easy problem to solve. E.g. I just spent 30 minutes trying to review a PR that includes understanding how synchronization of `Configuration` works. I ran out of my limited time and gave up. IMHO investing in CI & testing is the way out. Better tests give us more confidence to merge. Faster CI speeds up our progress. Please dont take this as a complaint. I wanted two weeks once the build > failed. > Committer asked me to "repush"... what build bot doesnt have " restest me" > Yeah. I *really* think our CI needs some love. It should be fast, reliable, and clear. It is a hard problem that is not very fun but it is limiting my ability to contribute. > > Another time. Wait 2 weeks. 4 style cleanups... missed rhe email made the > cleanup in 1 hour. Another review... ooopse one more... > > Doesnt make sense to wait to go in circles to fix an indent. .... Just > committer fix rhe indent and get it done. > Spotbugs and checkstyle drive me nuts. They are a pain to use. Spotbugs is buggy. I don't know how to run them locally like CI does (I just want new problems, but I get them all). Checkstyle lacks an auto-fix command. Coming from working on better toolchains (e.g. Rust's cargo fmt) it is painful! While we are on a rant, I really want to fix the bulky Yetus comments to PRs/ issues which makes me constantly have to scroll and manually scan with my eyes for actual discussion. It adds unnecessary cognitive load to a process we are already struggling with. Thanks for the discussion, Aaron > > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 12:22 PM Aaron Fabbri <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I'm going through our issue backlog and noticing we have a lot of old > > issues. > > > > E.g. This filter for issues not updated for 10 years > > < > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HADOOP%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20updated%20%20%3C%20120m%20ORDER%20BY%20updated%20ASC > > > > > has > > almost 3000 results. > > > > How do people feel about me doing a bulk resolution with "Abandoned"? > I'd > > add a note saying this issue hasn't been updated for 10 years, reopen and > > update if needed. > > > > Thanks! > > Aaron > > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 9:18 AM Aaron Fabbri <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Wei-Chiu, > > > Thanks for the feedback. I will resend on common-dev list. > > > Cheers, > > > Aaron > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 9:35 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> +1 > > >> > > >> And I mean, this matter is better discussed in dev mailing lists. > > >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 5:33 PM Aaron Fabbri <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > >> <snip> pasted above </snip> > > >> > > >> > > >
