osdir.com

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: JIRA Workflow Proposals


Hmm.  On re-reading your earlier email, I realise I may have anyway gotten confused about your suggestion.

Are you suggesting we periodically clear any new labels, once we have replacements, and only leave the old ones that exist today and haven’t been categorised?


> On 26 Nov 2018, at 23:02, Benedict Elliott Smith <benedict@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Do we maintain a list of prior rejects?  Revisit any that have increased in usage since last?
> 
> Probably we’re bike shedding this one thing too closely.  I would be happy with removing it, periodically cleaning it, or leaving it intact.  Mining it for schema changes, or telling people to ask.
> 
> But I fear it will all begin to go to pot again after this effort wanes, and my life has only one JIRA cleanup effort to call upon.
> 
> 
>> On 26 Nov 2018, at 18:24, Joshua McKenzie <jmckenzie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> I'm thinking something like "Every 6 months, we query on labels with count
>>> = 4 and consider promoting those. Anything < that only shows if people are
>> specifically looking for it."
>> 
>> Taking count of occurrence of a label as a proxy for the potential value in
>> promoting it to something hardened isn't without flaws, but it's also not
>> awful IMO.
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:37 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <benedict@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Is there harm in leaving them in, aside from psychologically to all of us
>>>> knowing they're there? =/
>>> 
>>> It would at least make it easier to triage the ‘new' ones and promote
>>> them.  The pain of actually categorising the labels was high, and doing
>>> that every time would mean it never happens (though maybe there are ways to
>>> work around this).  I also think there’s value in shedding noisy data, in
>>> an active process to promote good hygiene.
>>> 
>>> But who said our state of mind isn’t also important :)
>>> 
>>> This isn’t something I’ll fight hard for, though, I can see it’s at least
>>> partially a preference for cleanliness.  Interested to see what others
>>> think.
>>> 
>>>> On 26 Nov 2018, at 17:28, Joshua McKenzie <jmckenzie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> An alternative route might be to support labels, and (e.g.) bi-annually
>>>>> promote any useful ones to the schema, and clear the rest?
>>>> 
>>>> +1 to promoting, probably should case-by-case the clearing (but mostly
>>> just
>>>> clear)
>>>> 
>>>> The present labels are much too painful to clean up.  I categorised the
>>> top
>>>>> 100 or so, and will migrate them (there’s a CSV embedded in the proposal
>>>>> you can look at).  The rest have < 5 occurrences, so I cannot see what
>>>>> value they really provide us.
>>>> 
>>>> Is there harm in leaving them in, aside from psychologically to all of us
>>>> knowing they're there? =/
>>>> 
>>>> I _think_ several of your concerns are addressed by the new Triage state.
>>>>> The idea is for users to create a ticket without any field requirements.
>>>>> Contributors should liaise with the user to understand the problem, and
>>>>> transition it to Open.
>>>> 
>>>> Shit, my bad, totally missed / didn't grok that. That makes a lot more
>>>> sense.
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 11:58 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <
>>> benedict@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry, I failed to respond to point (2) in the aggregate email.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I’m not sure it’s worth complicating the flow for this scenario, as the
>>>>> ticket can simply return to ‘Patch Available’.  But, I’m really unsure
>>> of
>>>>> the best option here.  Does anyone else have any strong opinions /
>>> thoughts?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 26 Nov 2018, at 14:33, Sankalp Kohli <kohlisankalp@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have following initial comments on the proposal.
>>>>>> 1. Creating a JIRA should have few fields mandatory like platform,
>>>>> version, etc. We want to put less burden on someone creating a ticket
>>> but I
>>>>> feel these are required for opening bugs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2. What is the flow when a non committer does the first pass of review?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Nov 26, 2018, at 7:46 PM, Joshua McKenzie <jmckenzie@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1) Removal of labels: one of the strengths of the current model is
>>>>>>> flexibility for groupings of concepts to arise from a user-perspective
>>>>>>> (lhf, etc). Calcifying the label concepts into components, categories,
>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>> is a strict loss of functionality for users to express and categorize
>>>>> their
>>>>>>> concerns with the project. This feels like an over-correction to our
>>>>>>> current lack of discipline cleaning up one-off labels.
>>> Counter-proposal:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1. We beef up the categories and components as proposed and migrate
>>>>>>> labels to those
>>>>>>> 2. We remove the one-off labels that aren't adding value, considering
>>>>>>> aggregating similar labels
>>>>>>> 3. We leave the "labels" field intact, perhaps with a bit of guidance
>>>>> on
>>>>>>> how to effectively use it
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2) Required fields on transition: assuming these are required upon
>>>>> *issue
>>>>>>> creation*, that's placing a significant burden on a user that's seen
>>>>>>> something and wants to open a ticket about it, but isn't sure if it's
>>> a
>>>>>>> "Semantic Failure" or a "Consistency Failure", for instance. If this
>>> is,
>>>>>>> instead, a field required for transition to other ticket states by the
>>>>>>> developer working on it, I think that makes sense.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 3) Priority Changes: to be blunt, this looks like shuffling chairs on
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> deck of the titanic on this one - in my experience, most users aren't
>>>>> going
>>>>>>> to set the priority on tickets when they open them (hence default ==
>>>>> major
>>>>>>> and most tickets are opened as major), so this is something that will
>>> be
>>>>>>> either a) left alone so as not to offend those for whom the priority
>>> is
>>>>>>> *actually* major or consistent with the default, or b) changed by the
>>>>> dev
>>>>>>> anyway and the added signal from a new "High vs. Urgent" distinction
>>> and
>>>>>>> communication of developer intent to engage with a ticket is something
>>>>>>> that'll be lost on most users that are just reporting something. I
>>> don't
>>>>>>> have a meaningful counter-proposal at this point as the current
>>> problem
>>>>> is
>>>>>>> more about UX on this field than the signal / noise on the field
>>> itself
>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A meta question about the "What and Why" of what we're trying to
>>>>> accomplish
>>>>>>> here: it sounds like what you're looking at is:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1. to capture more information
>>>>>>> 2. simplify the data entry
>>>>>>> 3. nudge people towards more complete and accurate data entry
>>>>>>> 4. our ability as a project to measure release quality over time and
>>>>>>> identify when Cassandra is ready for (or due a) release.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The proposal in its current form makes certain strong inroads in all
>>> of
>>>>>>> those 4 metrics, but I think the major thing missing is the UX of what
>>>>>>> we're thinking about changing:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1. Making it easy for / reduce friction for users to report bugs and
>>>>>>> requests into the project JIRA (easy to do things right, hard to do
>>>>> things
>>>>>>> wrong) (current proposal is a +1 on "do things right", though I'd
>>> argue
>>>>>>> against it being *easy*)
>>>>>>> 2. Asking from the users what they can provide about their experience
>>>>>>> and issues and no more
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Philosophically, are we trying to make it easier for people that are
>>>>> paid
>>>>>>> FT to work on C*, are we trying to make things easier for *users* of
>>> C*,
>>>>>>> both, neither? Who are we targeting here w/these project changes and
>>>>> what
>>>>>>> of their issues / problems are we trying to improve?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And lastly: the TLC and management of the JIRA aspects of this project
>>>>> have
>>>>>>> *definitely* languished (not pointing any fingers here, I'm *at least*
>>>>> as
>>>>>>> guilty as anyone on this :) ) - so a big thanks to you and whomever
>>>>> you've
>>>>>>> collaborate with in getting this conversation started!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:39 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <
>>>>> benedict@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We’ve concluded our efforts to produce a proposal for changes to the
>>>>> JIRA
>>>>>>>> workflow, and they can be found here:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/JIRA+Workflow+Proposals
>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/JIRA+Workflow+Proposals
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I hope there will be broad consensus, but I’m sure it won’t be plain
>>>>>>>> sailing.  It would be great to get a discussion going around the
>>>>> proposal,
>>>>>>>> so please take some time to read and respond if you think you’ll
>>> have a
>>>>>>>> strong opinion on this topic.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> There remains an undecided question in our initial proposal, that is
>>>>>>>> highlighted in the wiki.  Specifically, there was no seemingly
>>>>> objective
>>>>>>>> winner for the suggested changes to Component (though I have a
>>>>> preference,
>>>>>>>> that I will express in the ensuing discussion).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Other contentious issues may be:
>>>>>>>> - The removal of ‘labels’ - which is very noisy, the vast majority of
>>>>>>>> which provide no value, and we expect can be superseded by other
>>>>> suggestions
>>>>>>>> - The introduction of required fields for certain transitions, some
>>> of
>>>>>>>> which are new (complexity, severity, bug/feature category)
>>>>>>>> - The introduction of some new transitions (Triage, Review in
>>> Progress,
>>>>>>>> Change Requested)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Look forward to hearing your thoughts!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx