That makes sense, thanks.

One thing I've never been clear on is who should be allowed to resolve Jiras.  Can I go clean up the backlog of Kafka Jiras that weren't created by me?

If there's an informal policy here, can we update the wiki to reflect it?  Maybe it's there already, but I didn't see it last time I looked.


On Oct 8, 2016 4:10 AM, "Sean Owen" <sowen@cloudera.com> wrote:
That flood of emails means several people (Xiao, Holden mostly AFAICT) have been updating the status of old JIRAs. Thank you, I think that really does help. 

I have a suggested set of conventions I've been using, just to bring some order to the resolutions. It helps because JIRA functions as a huge archive of decisions and the more accurately we can record that the better. What do people think of this?

- Resolve as Fixed if there's a change you can point to that resolved the issue
- If the issue is a proper subset of another issue, mark it a Duplicate of that issue (rather than the other way around)
- If it's probably resolved, but not obvious what fixed it or when, then Cannot Reproduce or Not a Problem
- Obsolete issue? Not a Problem
- If it's a coherent issue but does not seem like there is support or interest in acting on it, then Won't Fix
- If the issue doesn't make sense (non-Spark issue, etc) then Invalid
- I tend to mark Umbrellas as "Done" when done if they're just containers
- Try to set Fix version
- Try to set Assignee to the person who most contributed to the resolution. Usually the person who opened the PR. Strong preference for ties going to the more 'junior' contributor

The only ones I think are sort of important are getting the Duplicate pointers right, and possibly making sure that Fixed issues have a clear path to finding what change fixed it and when. The rest doesn't matter much.