Yes, we need to bring sanity to all of that, and that can be done only if we all do it together :)
And "New" is probably a bad choice. "Unassigned" is also wrong since we always have a default assignee. That's why I suggested an "Unverified" or "Untriaged" state instead. Tristan On 25/08/14 10:13, Radim Vansa wrote: > ... marking those issues as "New" would sound somewhat funny :) > > Radim > > On 08/25/2014 10:12 AM, Radim Vansa wrote: >> And are there any recommendations about the 767 currently open issues >> [1]? It seems to me that after 5 years any issue [2] should be resolved >> or rejected. >> >> [1] >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:issues-panel >> [2] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3 >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-19 etc... >> >> On 08/25/2014 09:56 AM, Tristan Tarrant wrote: >>> I was just looking at the Jira workflow for Infinispan and noticed that >>> all issues start off in the "Open" state and assigned to the default >>> owner for the component. Unfortunately this does not mean that the >>> actual "assignee" has taken ownership, or that he intends to work on it >>> in the near future, or that he has even looked at it. I would therefore >>> like to introduce a state for fresh issues which is just before "Open". >>> This can be "New" or "Unverified/Untriaged" and will make it easier to >>> find all those "lurker" issues which are lost in the noise. >>> >>> What do you think ? >>> >>> Tristan >>> _______________________________________________ >>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
