As a first step, I closed 30 issues that hadn’t been updated in 2 years. project = GEODE AND issuetype = Bug AND resolution = Unresolved AND (labels in (CI, Ci, ci, Flaky, flaky) OR summary ~ ci) and updated <= -104w ORDER BY created DESC, priority DESC, updated DESC
Anthony > On Apr 26, 2018, at 6:24 PM, Lynn Hughes-Godfrey <lhughesgodf...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > Modifying your filter to look at jiras that haven't been updated in a year > (vs. created in the past year) ... there are 114 to review. > That probably means there were updates for 34 of those when they reproduced > in CI, etc, so we wouldn't want to close those. > > Looking specifically at GEODE-552 ... GEODE-640 was a duplicate of this and > has been marked closed (use port 0 so we use next available port vs. > default port) ... so really this one looks like a bookkeeping issue > (GEODE-552 should be closed as a duplicate of GEODE-640). > Same for GEODE-554 ... it is the same as GEODE-552, GEODE-640 (and also > open). > > I will probably take some more time tomorrow to look through the remaining > 112 .... to see if I can see any reason why we shouldn't just resolve them > now. > I will send you more feedback then. > > > > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Galen O'Sullivan <gosulli...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > >> I'm for it. Less noise is a good thing, and I don't think they're likely >> to get prioritized anyways. If we close as WONTFIX or similar, we can >> always look back for them later if we want. >> >> >> >> On 4/26/18 10:39 AM, Anthony Baker wrote: >> >>> Thanks Lynn! >>> >>> As I first step I’d like to focus on issues labeled as ‘CI’. There are >>> 220 open issues and 148 [1] of those have been open for > 1 year. If I >>> look at the metrics jobs [2, 3, 4] I see a clear mismatch between failures >>> that are currently relevant and our JIRA backlog. That is, a bunch of >>> tests that used to fail don’t anymore. Perhaps that’s because of the >>> transition away from Jenkins or something else, but it makes it hard to >>> figure out what is important. GEODE-552 [5] is a good example—is this >>> still a problem and if so is it worth doing compared to more recent issues? >>> >>> So I’d like to make a radical proposal: let’s close out all 148 of those >>> stale CI issues. If a test failure recurs, we can always reopen the ticket. >>> >>> Why I think this is important: I’ve noticed a few reports from users >>> that did not get timely attention and caused frustration. I think reducing >>> the sheer volume of issues will help us focus on the most important issues. >>> >>> Let me know what you think. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Anthony >>> >>> [1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12343689&jq >>> l=project%20%3D%20GEODE%20AND%20issuetype%20%3D%20Bug%20AND% >>> 20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20(labels%20in%20(CI% >>> 2C%20Ci%2C%20ci%2C%20Flaky%2C%20flaky)%20OR%20summary%20~% >>> 20ci)%20and%20created%20%3C%3D%20%20-52w%20ORDER%20BY% >>> 20created%20DESC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC >>> [2] https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/d >>> evelop-metrics/jobs/GeodeDistributedTestMetrics/builds/66 >>> [3] https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/d >>> evelop-metrics/jobs/GeodeIntegrationTestMetrics/builds/66 >>> [4] https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/d >>> evelop-metrics/jobs/GeodeFlakyTestMetrics/builds/66 >>> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-552 >>> >>> On Apr 20, 2018, at 3:19 PM, Lynn Hughes-Godfrey < >>>> lhughesgodf...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>>> >>>> I can help with that. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I surfed through our JIRA backlog and cleaned up a bunch of old >>>>> issues—primarily issues that we missed resolving when the fix was >>>>> made. In >>>>> some cases I asked for help determining if the issue should be closed. >>>>> If >>>>> you got one of these requests please try and follow up in the next week >>>>> or >>>>> so and close if needed. >>>>> >>>>> There are a number of issues remaining that probably deserve a deeper >>>>> review. Some of these include: >>>>> >>>>> - Bugs that have insufficient detail and can’t be reproduced >>>>> - Tasks that may no longer be relevant >>>>> - Ideas that are good but we may never get around to doing them >>>>> - CI failures that no longer occur >>>>> >>>>> Ideally I’d like to close out issues where appropriate to make the >>>>> backlog >>>>> more manageable and approachable. Any volunteers to help with this >>>>> effort? >>>>> >>>>> Anthony >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>
