Was thinking that getting an estimated statistic of the number of issues
that would be closed if this is done would help.
Open issues: 3882 (project = SPARK AND status in (Open, "In Progress",
Reopened))
Open + Does not affect 3.0+ = 2795
Open + Does not affect 2.4+ = 2373
Open + Does not affect 2.3+ = 1765
Open + Does not affect 2.2+ = 1322
Open + Does not affect 2.1+ = 967
Open + Does not affect 2.0+ = 651
Open + Does not affect 2.0+ + Priority in (Urgent, Blocker, Critical, High)
[JQL1] = 838
Open + Does not affect 2.0+ + Priority in (Urgent, Blocker, Critical, High,
Major) = 206
Open + Does not affect 2.2+ + Priority not in (Urgent, Blocker, Critical,
High) [JQL2] = 1303
Open + Does not affect 2.2+ + Priority not in (Urgent, Blocker, Critical,
High, Major) = 397
Open + Does not affect 2.3+ + Priority not in (Urgent, Blocker, Critical,
High) = 1743
Open + Does not affect 2.3+ + Priority not in (Urgent, Blocker, Critical,
High, Major) = 550
Resolving ALL seems a bit overkill to me.
My current opinion seems like:
- Resolving "Open + Does not affect 2.0+" is something that should be
done, as I doubt anyone would be looking at the 1.x versions anymore (651
tasks)
- Resolving "Open + Does not affect 2.3+ + Priority not in (Urgent,
Blocker, Critical, High, Major)" may be a good idea (an additional ~1k
tasks)
The issues with priority Urgent/Blocker/Critical should be triaged - as it
may have something important.
[JQL1]:
project = SPARK
AND status in (Open, "In Progress", Reopened)
AND NOT (affectedVersion in versionMatch("^[2-3].*"))
AND priority NOT IN (Urgent, Blocker, Critical, High)
[JQL2]:
project = SPARK
AND status in (Open, "In Progress", Reopened)
AND NOT (affectedVersion in versionMatch("^3.*") OR affectedVersion in
versionMatch("^2.4.*") OR affectedVersion in versionMatch("^2.3.*") OR
affectedVersion in versionMatch("^2.2.*"))
AND priority NOT IN (Urgent, Blocker, Critical, High)
On Wed, May 15, 2019, 14:55 Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to propose to resolve all JIRAs that affects EOL releases -
> 2.2 and below. and affected version
> not specified. I was rather against this way and considered this as last
> resort in roughly 3 years ago
> when we discussed. Now I think we should go ahead with this. See below.
>
> I have been talking care of this for so long time almost every day those 3
> years. The number of JIRAs
> keeps increasing and it does never go down. Now the number is going over
> 2500 JIRAs.
> Did you guys know? in JIRA, we can only go through page by page up to 1000
> items. So, currently we're even
> having difficulties to go through every JIRA. We should manually filter
> out and check each.
> The number is going over the manageable size.
>
> I am not suggesting this without anything actually trying. This is what we
> have tried within my visibility:
>
> 1. In roughly 3 years ago, Sean tried to gather committers and even
> non-committers people to sort
> out this number. At that time, we were only able to keep this number
> as is. After we lost this momentum,
> it kept increasing back.
> 2. At least I scanned _all_ the previous JIRAs at least more than two
> times and resolved them. Roughly
> once a year. The rest of them are mostly obsolete but not enough
> information to investigate further.
> 3. I strictly stick to "Contributing to JIRA Maintenance"
> https://spark.apache.org/contributing.html and
> resolve JIRAs.
> 4. Promoting other people to comment on JIRA or actively resolve them.
>
> One of the facts I realised is the increasing number of committers doesn't
> virtually help this much (although
> it might be helpful if somebody active in JIRA becomes a committer.)
>
> One of the important thing I should note is that, it's now almost pretty
> difficult to reproduce and test the
> issues found in EOL releases. We should git clone, checkout, build and
> test. And then, see if that issue
> still exists in upstream, and fix. This is non-trivial overhead.
>
> Therefore, I would like to propose resolving _all_ the JIRAs that targets
> EOL releases - 2.2 and below.
> Please let me know if anyone has some concerns or objections.
>
> Thanks.
>
