Good first step! -- Mike Stolz Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Lead Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 Download the GemFire book here. <https://content.pivotal.io/ebooks/scaling-data-services-with-pivotal-gemfire>
On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > >
