Sounds good to me. On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:34 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote:
> Coming back to this thread (again!) > > I wrote up https://beam.apache.org/contribute/jira-priorities/ and > https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-blockers/ and I have had > success communicating using these docs. > > However, some people get confused because the existing Jira priorities > have tooltips that say something slightly different [1], or they just don't > discover the site. > > Since Jira 7.6.0, I think, it is possible to customize this in Jira > directly. [2] > > What do you think about changing from the default priorities to just P0, > P1, etc, and using these tooltips that match the docs on the Beam site? > > P0 - Outage blocking development and/or testing work; requires immediate > and continuous attention > P1 - Critical bug: data loss, total loss of function, or loss of testing > signal due to test failures or flakiness > P2 - Default priority. Will be triaged and planned according to community > practices. > P3 - Non-urgent bugs, features, and improvements > P4 - Trivial items, spelling errors, etc. > > This is related to the "Automation for Jira" thread. It was suggested to > automatically lower priorities of stale bugs, to match reality and let us > focus on the bugs that remain at higher priorities. I hope automatically > moving "P2" to "P3" with these tooltips is nicer for people than > automatically moving "Major" to "Minor". Using the default words seems like > you are telling the user their problem is minor. > > Kenn > > [1] > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ShowConstantsHelp.jspa?decorator=popup#PriorityLevels > [2] https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRASERVER-3821 > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 4:25 PM Pablo Estrada <[email protected]> wrote: > >> That SGTM >> >> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 4:18 PM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 to both. >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 3:58 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 3:39 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Suppose, hypothetically, we say that if Fix Version is set, then >>> P0/Blocker and P1/Critical block release and lower priorities get bumped. >>> > >>> > >>> > +1 to Kenn's suggestion. In addition, we can discourage setting Fix >>> version for non-critical issues before issues are fixed. >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Most likely the release manager still pings and asks about all those >>> before bumping. Which means that in effect they were part of the burn down >>> and do block the release in the sense that they must be re-triaged away to >>> the next release. I would prefer less work for the release manager and more >>> emphasis on the default being nonblocking. >>> >> >>> >> One very different possibility is to ignore Fix Version on open bugs >>> and use a different search query as the burndown, auto bump everything that >>> didn't make it. >>> > >>> > This may create a situation where an issue will eventually be closed, >>> but Fix Version not updated, and confuse the users who will rely "Fix >>> Version" to find which release actually fixes the issue. A pass over open >>> bugs with a Fix Version set to next release (as currently done by a release >>> manager) helps to make sure that unfixed bugs won't have Fix Version tag of >>> the upcoming release. >>> > >>> >> >>> >> Kenn >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 14:16 Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm fine with that, but in that case we should have a priority for >>> >>> release blockers, below which bugs get automatically bumped to the >>> >>> next release (and which becomes the burndown list). >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 1:58 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > My takeaway from this thread is that priorities should have a >>> shared community intuition and/or policy around how they are treated, which >>> could eventually be formalized into SLOs. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > At a practical level, I do think that build breaks are higher >>> priority than release blockers. If you are on this thread but not looking >>> at the PR, here is the verbiage I added about urgency: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > P0/Blocker: "A P0 issue is more urgent than simply blocking the >>> next release" >>> >>> > P1/Critical: "Most critical bugs should block release" >>> >>> > P2/Major: "No special urgency is associated" >>> >>> > ... >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Kenn >>> >>> > >>> >>> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:46 AM Robert Bradshaw < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> We cut a release every 6 weeks, according to schedule, making it >>> easy >>> >>> >> to plan for, and the release manager typically sends out a warning >>> >>> >> email to remind everyone. I don't think it makes sense to do that >>> for >>> >>> >> every ticket. Blockers should be reserved for things we really >>> >>> >> shouldn't release without. >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:33 AM Pablo Estrada < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > I mentioned on the PR that I had been using the 'blocker' >>> priority along with the 'fix version' field to mark issues that I want to >>> get in the release. >>> >>> >> > Of course, this little practice of mine only matters much >>> around release branch cutting time - and has been useful for me to track >>> which things I want to ensure getting into the release / bump to the next >>> /etc. >>> >>> >> > I've also found it to be useful as a way to communicate with >>> the release manager without having to sync directly. >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > What would be a reasonable way to tell the release manager "I'd >>> like to get this feature in. please talk to me if you're about to cut the >>> branch" - that also uses the priorities appropriately? - and that allows >>> the release manager to know when a fix version is "more optional" / "less >>> optional"? >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:20 PM Kenneth Knowles < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> I finally got around to writing some of this up. It is >>> minimal. Feedback is welcome, especially if what I have written does not >>> accurately represent the community's approach. >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9862 >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> Kenn >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 3:21 PM Daniel Oliveira < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> Ah, sorry, I missed that Alex was just quoting from our Jira >>> installation (didn't read his email closely enough). Also I wasn't aware >>> about those pages on our website. >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> Seeing as we do have definitions for our priorities, I guess >>> my main request would be that they be made more discoverable somehow. I >>> don't think the tooltips are reliable, and the pages on the website are >>> informative, but hard to find. Since it feels a bit lazy to say "this isn't >>> discoverable enough" without suggesting any improvements, I'd like to >>> propose these two changes: >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> 1. We should write a Beam Jira Guide with basic information >>> about our Jira. I think the bug priorities should go in here, but also >>> anything else we would want someone to know before filing any Jira issues, >>> like how our components are organized or what the different issue types >>> mean. This guide could either be written in the website or the wiki, but I >>> think it should definitely be linked in >>> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/ so that newcomers read it before >>> getting their Jira account approved. The goal here being to have a >>> reference for the basics of our Jira since at the moment it doesn't seem >>> like we have anything for this. >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> 2. The existing info on Post-commit and pre-commit policies >>> doesn't seem very discoverable to someone monitoring the Pre/Post-commits. >>> I've reported a handful of test-failures already and haven't seen this link >>> mentioned much. We should try to find a way to funnel people towards this >>> link when there's an issue, the same way we try to funnel people towards >>> the contribution guide when they write a PR. As a note, while writing this >>> email I remembered this link that someone gave me before ( >>> https://s.apache.org/beam-test-failure). That mentions the Post-commit >>> policies page, so maybe it's just a matter of pasting that all over our >>> Jenkins builds whenever we have a failing test? >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> PS: I'm also definitely for SLOs, but I figure it's probably >>> better discussed in a separate thread so I'm trying to stick to the subject >>> of priority definitions. >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:17 AM Scott Wegner < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> Thanks for driving this discussion. I also was not aware of >>> these existing definitions. Once we agree on the terms, let's add them to >>> our Contributor Guide and start using them. >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> +1 in general; I like both Alex and Kenn's definitions; >>> Additional wordsmithing could be moved to a Pull Request. Can we make the >>> definitions useful for both the person filing a bug, and the assignee, i.e. >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> <Priority Level>: <Criteria for what types of issues should >>> be assigned>. <Expectations for responding to a Priority Level issue> >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 7:49 PM Kenneth Knowles < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>> The content that Alex posted* is the definition from our >>> Jira installation anyhow. >>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>> I just searched around, and there's >>> https://community.atlassian.com/t5/Jira-questions/According-to-Jira-What-is-Blocker-Critical-Major-Minor-and/qaq-p/668774 >>> which makes clear that this is really user-defined, since Jira has many >>> deployments with their own configs. >>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>> I guess what I want to know about this thread is what >>> action is being proposed? >>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>> Previously, there was a thread that resulted in >>> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/precommit-policies/ and >>> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/postcommits-policies/. These have >>> test failures and flakes as Critical. I agree with Alex that these should >>> be Blocker. They disrupt the work of the entire community, so we need to >>> drop everything and get green again. >>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>> Other than that, I think what you - Daniel - are suggesting >>> is that the definition might be best expressed as SLOs. I asked on >>> [email protected] about how we could have those and the answer is >>> the homebrew >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/trunk/projects/status/sla/jira/. >>> If anyone has time to dig into that and see if it can work for us, that >>> would be cool. >>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>> Kenn >>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>> *Blocker: Blocks development and/or testing work, >>> production could not run >>> >>> >> >>>>> Critical: Crashes, loss of data, severe memory leak. >>> >>> >> >>>>> Major (Default): Major loss of function. >>> >>> >> >>>>> Minor: Minor loss of function, or other problem where easy >>> workaround is present. >>> >>> >> >>>>> Trivial: Trivial Cosmetic problem like misspelt words or >>> misaligned text. >>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 7:20 PM Daniel Oliveira < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>> Are there existing meanings for the priorities in Jira >>> already? I wasn't able to find any info on either the Beam website or wiki >>> about it, so I've just been prioritizing issues based on gut feeling. If >>> not, I think having some well-defined priorities would be nice, at least >>> for our test-failures, and especially if we wanna have some SLOs like I've >>> seen being thrown about. >>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:06 PM Kenneth Knowles < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> I've been thinking about this since working on the >>> release. If I ignore the names I think: >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> P0: get paged, stop whatever you planned on doing, work >>> late to fix >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> P1: continually update everyone on status and shouldn't >>> sit around unassigned >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> P2: most things here; they can be planned or picked up by >>> whomever >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> P3: nice-to-have things, maybe starter tasks or lesser >>> cleanup, but no driving need >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> Sometimes there's P4 but I don't value it. Often P3 is a >>> deprioritized thing from P2, so more involved and complex, while P4 is >>> something easy and not important filed just as a reminder. Either way, they >>> are both not on the main path of work. >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> I looked into it and the Jira priority scheme determines >>> the set of priorities as well as the default. Ours is shared by 635 >>> projects. Probably worth keeping. The default priority is Major which would >>> correspond with P2. We can expect the default to be where most issues end >>> up. >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> P0 == Blocker: get paged, stop whatever you planned on >>> doing, work late to fix >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> P1 == Critical: continually update everyone on status and >>> shouldn't sit around unassigned >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> P0 == Major (default): most things here; they can be >>> planned or picked up by whomever >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> P3 == Minor: nice-to-have things, maybe starter tasks or >>> lesser cleanup, but no driving need >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> Trivial: Maybe this is attractive to newcomers as it >>> makes it sound easy. >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> Kenn >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:08 PM Alex Amato < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Hello Beam community, I was thinking about this and >>> found some information to share/discuss. Would it be possible to confirm my >>> thinking on this: >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> There are 5 priorities in the JIRA system today (tooltip >>> link): >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Blocker Blocks development and/or testing work, >>> production could not run >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Critical Crashes, loss of data, severe memory leak. >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Major Major loss of function. >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Minor Minor loss of function, or other problem where >>> easy workaround is present. >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Trivial Cosmetic problem like misspelt words or >>> misaligned text. >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> How should JIRA issues be prioritized for pre/post >>> commit test failures? >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> I think Blocker >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> What about the flakey failures? >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Blocker as well? >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> How should non test issues be prioritized? (E.g. feature >>> to implement or bugs not regularly breaking tests). >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> I suggest Minor, but its not clear how to distinguish >>> between these. >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Below is my thinking: But I wanted to know what the >>> Apache/Beam community generally thinks about these priorities. >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Blocker: Expect to be paged. Production systems are down. >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Critical: Expect to be contacted by email or a bot to >>> fix this. >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Major: Some loss of function in the repository, can >>> issues that need to be addressed soon are here. >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Minor: Most issues will be here, important issues within >>> this will get picked up and completed. FRs, bugs. >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Trivial: Unlikely to be implemented, far too many issues >>> in this category. FRs, bugs. >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Thanks for helping to clear this up >>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Alex >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> -- >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> Got feedback? tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback >>> >>
