ok, per this direction,i removed my issues from 0.6 roadmap. If i finish any of them (797 50-50, 814 or whatever this pca issue was, less likely) I will re-insert them to 0.6 roadmap.
-Dmitriy On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >> >> >> >
