Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
Accumulo >> mail # dev >> RE: On ticket management


+
John Vines 2012-05-02, 21:51
+
Bob.Thorman@... 2012-05-02, 21:55
+
Adam Fuchs 2012-05-11, 00:34
+
David Medinets 2012-05-11, 01:23
+
John Vines 2012-05-11, 14:53
+
John Vines 2012-05-02, 13:31
+
Eric Newton 2012-05-02, 15:34
+
Mike Drob 2012-05-02, 18:07
+
Bob.Thorman@... 2012-05-02, 21:36
+
Keith Turner 2012-05-02, 21:49
+
Bob.Thorman@... 2012-05-02, 21:53
Copy link to this message
-
Re: On ticket management
If you're interested from an application development standpoint, you
could go bug-hunting, finding performance bottlenecks, or add some
features to the wikipedia example.

I'm rather sure there are optimizations to be had in that code.

On 05/02/2012 04:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Most of what I'm using involves map/reduce functions to ingest bulk data, batch writers for streaming data ingest, and batch scanners (particularly document partition scanners) to get it back out.  So I guess those are my areas of interest.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 16:50
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: On ticket management
>
> Is there anything in particular that you are interested in?
>
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:36 PM,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:
>> There's probably many folks like myself that would like to contribute
>> but have no idea where/how to get started.  Any suggestions?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Eric Newton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:34
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: On ticket management
>>
>> Tickets that remain unassigned don't seem to get any attention.
>>
>> I've been trying to close as many "easy" tickets as I can over the
>> last few days... and there's this giant pile of tickets that are
>> unassigned that I've not even started to look at.
>>
>> Unless we are rigorous about going through the unassigned tickets, I
>> prefer to keep them assigned to someone.
>>
>> -Eric
>>
>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:31 AM, John Vines<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So early on we took the stance that different committers owned
>>> different realms of the project. This makes sense, because we want to
>>> make sure that outside contributors don't have their patches ignored.
>>> However, this also means that all tickets under realm X will be
>> assigned to that person.
>>> I am not a fan of this approach, for a few different reasons- 1.
>>> Committers get pidgeon-holed into very specific realms of the project
>>> 2. Committers can find themselves stuck with tickets that they are
>>> not
>>> that aware of and/or don't understand 3. Outsiders can be hesitant to
>>> begin contribution because with a ticket assigned they could think
>>> that they are working on it 4. At least for me, I would like to use
>>> assigned tickets to keep track of what I have on *MY* plate. That is,
>>> the things that I am working on and/or want and plan to work on next.
>>>
>>> I'm wondering what everyone's thoughts would be on making the default
>>> behavior for new tickets be unassigned (I imagine this is possible in
>>> JIRA) and the method for ticket assignment.  We can still divide up
>>> the realms for the committers for ensuring validity of the tickets
>>> and
>>> for handling patches though.  This would also mean purging all
>>> current
>>> ticket assignments, except those which should be legitimately
>>> assigned
>>> under the new methods.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
+
Eric Newton 2012-05-03, 02:55
+
David Medinets 2012-05-02, 21:50
+
Eric Newton 2012-05-11, 00:29
+
Eric Newton 2012-05-18, 13:26
+
Eric Newton 2012-05-11, 00:34
+
Josh Elser 2012-05-11, 01:57
+
Billie J Rinaldi 2012-05-11, 21:28
+
David Medinets 2012-05-02, 15:55