Thanks guys.
This thread got more than 3 PMC votes without any objection. I slightly
edited JQL from Abdeali's suggestion (thanks, Abdeali).
JQL:
project = SPARK
AND status in (Open, "In Progress", Reopened)
AND (
affectedVersion = EMPTY OR
NOT (affectedVersion in versionMatch("^3.*")
OR affectedVersion in versionMatch("^2.4.*")
OR affectedVersion in versionMatch("^2.3.*")
)
)
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20SPARK%20%0A%20%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%0A%20%20AND%20(%0A%20%20%20%20affectedVersion%20%3D%20EMPTY%20OR%0A%20%20%20%20NOT%20(affectedVersion%20in%20versionMatch(%22%5E3.*%22)%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20OR%20affectedVersion%20in%20versionMatch(%22%5E2.4.*%22)%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20OR%20affectedVersion%20in%20versionMatch(%22%5E2.3.*%22)%0A%20%20%20%20)%0A%20%20)
It means we will resolve all JIRAs that have EOL releases as affected
versions, including no version specified in affected versions - this will
reduce open JIRAs under 900.
Looks I can use a bulk action feature in JIRA. Tomorrow at the similar
time, I will
- Label those JIRAs as 'bulk-closed'
- Resolve them via `Incomplete` status.
Please double check the list and let me know if you guys have any concern.
2019년 5월 18일 (토) 오후 12:22, Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon.h...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
> +1, too.
>
> Thank you, Hyukjin!
>
> Bests,
> Dongjoon.
>
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 9:07 AM Imran Rashid <iras...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> +1, thanks for taking this on
>>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 7:26 PM Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
