I am really voting for a backlog target. most probably i won't implement pca idea by end of december but it doesn't mean i am not committed to see it thru. There probably will be some progress there if only in form of working notes and some math and discussions. I need this stuff to be peer reviewed. Why not have a 'backlog' target and let it live there?
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Jake Mannix <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> > - Anything that isn't fixed by December is WontFix and we release 0.6. >> > >> > I realize it's drastic, but it's a coherent position. >> >> Not at all drastic and perfectly sane. > > > So regarding JIRA management. I see that Benson and Sean come from > a viewpoint that long-lived open JIRA tickets are a bad sign, while people > like Grant, myself, and to some degree Ted, are used to seeing open tickets > in an unresolved state that are used as placeholders which tell the outside > observer what has been suggested in the past and what discussions have > gone on around it, and maybe even has a (currently outdated) patch of > a proposed solution. > > I'm really of the mind that WontFix is meant for "this idea does not fit at > all / > won't work / and we never intend to do this". Good ideas which we don't > have the bandwidth for are instead unversioned and left open. I think > WontFix on an "old ticket" sends a message to the person who opened it > that we're not interested in their contribution, or if it's a bugfix, that > we're > arrogant and don't think they are correct in stating it's an important bug. > > I'd much rather we find an acceptable unresolved state than always push > for "0 open JIRA tickets". The Hadoop community also has very long lived > open tickets with slow progress, it's not just Lucene. I think this is > healthy > and a nice way to keep track of what people have thought about in the past. > > -jake >
