oh, wait. 'Incomplete' can still make sense in this way then. Yes, I am good with 'Incomplete' too.
2019년 5월 16일 (목) 오전 11:24, Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@gmail.com>님이 작성: > I actually recently used 'Incomplete' a bit when the JIRA is basically > too poorly formed (like just copying and pasting an error) ... > > I was thinking about 'Unresolved' status or `Auto Closed' too. I double > checked they can be reopen as well after resolution. > > [image: Screen Shot 2019-05-16 at 10.35.14 AM.png] > [image: Screen Shot 2019-05-16 at 10.35.39 AM.png] > > 2019년 5월 16일 (목) 오전 11:04, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com>님이 작성: > >> Agree, anything without an Affected Version should be old enough to time >> out. >> I might use "Incomplete" or something as the status, as we haven't >> otherwise used that. Maybe that's simpler than a label. But, anything like >> that sounds good. >> >> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 8:40 PM Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> BTW, affected version became a required field (I don't remember when >>> exactly was .. I believe it's around when we work on Spark 2.3): >>> >>> [image: Screen Shot 2019-05-16 at 10.29.50 AM.png] >>> >>> So, including all EOL versions and affected versions not specified will >>> roughly work. >>> Using "Cannot Reproduce" as its status and 'bulk-closed' label makes the >>> best sense to me. >>> >>> Okie. I want to open this roughly for a week before taking an actual >>> action for this. If there's no more feedback, I will do as I said ^ next >>> week. >>> >>> >>> 2019년 5월 15일 (수) 오후 11:33, Josh Rosen <rosenvi...@gmail.com>님이 작성: >>> >>>> +1 in favor of some sort of JIRA cleanup. >>>> >>>> My only request is that we attach some sort of 'bulk-closed' label to >>>> issues that we close via JIRA filter batch operations (and resolve the >>>> issues as "Timed Out" / "Cannot Reproduce", not "Fixed"). Using a label >>>> makes it easier to audit what was closed, simplifying the process of >>>> identifying and re-opening valid issues caught in our dragnet. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 7:19 AM Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I gave up looking through JIRAs a long time ago, so, big respect for >>>>> continuing to try to triage them. I am afraid we're missing a few >>>>> important bug reports in the torrent, but most JIRAs are not >>>>> well-formed, just questions, stale, or simply things that won't be >>>>> added. I do think it's important to reflect that reality, and so I'm >>>>> always in favor of more aggressively closing JIRAs. I think this is >>>>> more standard practice, from projects like TensorFlow/Keras, pandas, >>>>> etc to just automatically drop Issues that don't see activity for N >>>>> days. We won't do that, but, are probably on the other hand far too >>>>> lax in closing them. >>>>> >>>>> Remember that JIRAs stay searchable and can be reopened, so it's not >>>>> like we lose much information. >>>>> >>>>> I'd close anything that hasn't had activity in 2 years (?), as a start. >>>>> I like the idea of closing things that only affect an EOL release, >>>>> but, many items aren't marked, so may need to cast the net wider. >>>>> >>>>> I think only then does it make sense to look at bothering to reproduce >>>>> or evaluate the 1000s that will still remain. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 4:25 AM 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. >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >>>>> >>>>>
