No, Mike, this was actively happening yesterday afternoon/evening. I found one more ticket that was being omitted later too, so it's possible that jira is even more wrong without our knowing On Feb 20, 2014 6:42 AM, "Mike Drob" <[email protected]> wrote:
> As of yesterday, JIRA has been re-indexed[1], so I think searches should be > working more correctly now. > > https://twitter.com/infrabot/statuses/436062268527501312 > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I just diff'ed what Jira generated and what I had (removing issues that > > were duplicate/invalid/etc), I found two issues that Jira did not report > > correctly. > > > > In talking with Keith, it looks like the Jira indices might be > > corrupted/out-of-date? ACCUMULO-1626 and ACCUMULO-1630 are reliably not > > appearing in any searches (when they previously did). > > > > https://confluence.atlassian.com/display/JIRAKB/Issues+are+ > > not+appearing+in+Issue+Navigator+search+or+Dashboards > > > > > > On 2/19/14, 4:46 PM, Keith Turner wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> The CHANGES file in 1.5.1-RC2 is only the changes in 1.5.1 > >>> > >> > >> > >> So the diff[1] on which all of this discussion was based is the RC1 diff > >> for CHANGES. In another thread we learned that the CHANGES files was not > >> generated via Jira. I sorted the file generated by jira and the file > from > >> RC2 and they have differences. I have not looked at all cases, but one > >> was > >> odd. ACCUMULO-1626 is not in the jira generated release notes but is in > >> the Josh generated ones?????????? That issue is marked for 1.5.1. I > give > >> up for now :) > >> > >> [1] : > >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;a=commitdiff;h= > >> d277321d176b71753d391f896f09dc9785173cb0 > >> > >> <https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;a=commitdiff;h= > >> d277321d176b71753d391f896f09dc9785173cb0> > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> On 2/19/14, 3:47 PM, Christopher wrote: > >>> > >>> If, on the other hand, I'm > >>>> misunderstanding, and this list is 1.5.1 only, and not a mix, then my > >>>> -1 can change to a +1, because I don't have a preference to include > >>>> 1.5.0 changes or not... only that they not be mixed confusingly. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> >
