A closed JIRA isn't gone. It's still there and searchable. Marking it WontFix with a note that it's open for reopening seems pretty clear to future readers. I suppose we wouldn't know, but, I don't have a sense that anyone has ever found a closed JIRA, wanted to work on it, but given up because it was closed and they didn't read further. But I can point to a hundred cases of the opposite.
If we're just talking about what to call these states, that's good. The only thing I truly don't like is a false "open" state, the "I'd like to think someone else will look at this" state. It seems like it's pro-community and some type of useful work, but I think it's the opposite. It's the kind of thing that discourages me personally, FWIW. Well, just leave the "Unversioned" tag as the bucket for everything else. That's pretty good. I won't molest it; I might suggest we push some things there. Obviously the more important thing is to action some of the important changes *that really should happen in a next release*, 0.6. Then file some JIRAs for additional things that can and should be done in the next month or so. On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]> wrote: > My first thought was what's the difference between open/unversioned, but then > I think it does require an explicit move which means we've indicated we've > looked at it. I do think this is a nice middle ground. > > > On Oct 24, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov wrote: > >> 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 >>> > > -------------------------------------------- > Grant Ingersoll > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > > >
