This is filed as https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-20231 which should take place now.
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 3:53 PM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 sounds good to me. Oftentimes I confused the relative priorities of > critical/blocker/major. > > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 3:05 PM Tyson Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Proposal sounds good to me! The tool tips will be fantastic. >> >> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 3:03 PM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >>> That's a great point, +1. >>> >>> > >>> > 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 >>> >>
