I think so (at least I think it is socially acceptable). Of course, use good judgement here :)
On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Cody Koeninger <c...@koeninger.org> wrote: > So to be clear, can I go clean up the Kafka cruft? > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 2:09 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> - Resolve as Fixed if there's a change you can point to that resolved > the > >> issue > >> - If the issue is a proper subset of another issue, mark it a Duplicate > of > >> that issue (rather than the other way around) > >> - If it's probably resolved, but not obvious what fixed it or when, then > >> Cannot Reproduce or Not a Problem > >> - Obsolete issue? Not a Problem > >> - If it's a coherent issue but does not seem like there is support or > >> interest in acting on it, then Won't Fix > >> - If the issue doesn't make sense (non-Spark issue, etc) then Invalid > >> - I tend to mark Umbrellas as "Done" when done if they're just > containers > >> - Try to set Fix version > >> - Try to set Assignee to the person who most contributed to the > >> resolution. Usually the person who opened the PR. Strong preference for > ties > >> going to the more 'junior' contributor > > > > > > +1 > > > > This is consistent with my understanding. It would be good to document > these > > on JIRA. And I second "The only ones I think are sort of important are > > getting the Duplicate pointers right, and possibly making sure that Fixed > > issues have a clear path to finding what change fixed it and when. The > rest > > doesn't matter much." > > > > I also think it is a good idea to give people rights to close tickets to > > help with JIRA maintenance. We can always revoke that if we see a > malicious > > actor (or somebody with extremely bad judgement), but we are pretty far > away > > from that right now. > > > > > > >
