[wildfly-dev] Re: 'Critical' JIRA cleanup

On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 11:51 AM Yeray Borges Santana <yborgess(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 2:40 PM Brian Stansberry < > brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 4:45 AM Yeray Borges Santana < >> yborgess(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 2:33 AM Brian Stansberry < >>> brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>>> We've got a lot ofJIRAs with 'Critical' priority that have been >>>> inactive for a long time. I think we should define 'Critical' as roughly >>>> "important enough that we need to work on it soon." At some point if >>>> something goes unaddressed long enough that's a sign that it's not >>>> important enough to be called critical. >>>> >>>> I propose doing the following: for any Critical WFLY or WFCORE that >>>> was opened > 12 months ago and hasn't shown signs of activity since the WF >>>> 32 release, I'll leave a comment saying I plan to downgrade it to Major >>>> unless the assignee says they plan to deal with it for the WF 34 cycle. And >>>> then a couple weeks later downgrade issues. >>>> >>>> Similarly, for issues with Fix Version 33.0.0.Final that have been >>>> rolling from release to release since WF 31 or earlier, when I release 33 I >>>> intend to remove the Fix Version instead of rolling it to 34. >>>> >>> >>>> WDYT? >>>> >>>> >>> I do agree regarding the "Critical" ones. >>> >>> And about the issues rolling from release to release, I would say we >>> should apply the same policy for WildFly Core issues too. >>> Removing the fix version if the Jira is not resolved will help >>> developers keep their intentions up to date. >>> >> >> I was thinking to give a bit of grace there, but this morning my initial >> reference to WF 31 seems like too much. Perhaps letting it roll one time is >> enough, so something scheduled for 33 can roll to 34, but if it was >> originally for 32 or earlier, unschedule it. >> >> > That sounds good to me, although checking the original schedule > on an already rolled Jira will require checking non-resolved Jiras one by > one to verify what was its original schedule. Well, maybe there won't be > too many Jiras, or it might be a simple task to do or even can be done > automatically. Otherwise, I would still consider letting the developer > review its intention on each new release. > If the fix versions were created in Jira before the Beta release, maybe between Beta and Final we could ask developers to move issues forward if they were still needed and then just unschedule the rest.

> > >>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Brian Stansberry >>>> Principal Architect, Red Hat JBoss EAP >>>> WildFly Project Lead >>>> He/Him/His >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> wildfly-dev mailing list -- wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wildfly-dev-leave(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> Privacy Statement: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/privacy-policy >>>> List Archives: >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/archives/list/wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org/message... >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> wildfly-dev mailing list -- wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wildfly-dev-leave(a)lists.jboss.org >>> Privacy Statement: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/privacy-policy >>> List Archives: >>> https://lists.jboss.org/archives/list/wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org/message... >>> >> >> >> -- >> Brian Stansberry >> Principal Architect, Red Hat JBoss EAP >> WildFly Project Lead >> He/Him/His >> > _______________________________________________ > wildfly-dev mailing list -- wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > To unsubscribe send an email to wildfly-dev-leave(a)lists.jboss.org > Privacy Statement: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/privacy-policy > List Archives: > https://lists.jboss.org/archives/list/wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org/message... >