spark-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hyukjin Kwon <>
Subject Re: Resolving all JIRAs affecting EOL releases
Date Thu, 16 May 2019 02:25:37 GMT
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 <>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 <>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 <> 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 <>님이
>>>> +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 <> 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 <>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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"
>>>>> 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:

View raw message