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

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo >> mail # dev >> Re: [DISCUSS] Setting 1.4 versions to "archive" in Jira

Copy link to this message
Re: [DISCUSS] Setting 1.4 versions to "archive" in Jira
Unfortunately, I think this list strips attachments, so the IRC
transcript didn't get attached.

Personally, I think it's probably okay to archive 1.4.0-1.4.3 now, and
leave 1.4.4 and 1.4.5 available for filing bugs against. If somebody
is using 1.4.0-1.4.3, we should be encouraging them to update and
verify their bug is still an issue. In the meantime, they can get
support from the user@ list and the IRC channel for
workarounds/assistance with verifying the issue. Comments,
environment, and descriptions in issues still allow additional
versions to be mentioned, but not making EOL'd versions available in
the menu is an additional reminder to users that they're using an
unsupported version and that they should investigate whether their
issues are fixed in newer versions.

I think archiving helps keep things in JIRA relevant for development
priorities and tracking, by omitting archived versions from generated
JIRA reports, and reduces the burden on those who triage issues (an
activity in which I participate, though admittedly, I could quite
easily ignore 1.4 issues, deferring them to another volunteer to

We can archive the remaining 1.4.x versions after a time, when people
bug reports against them slow and we can be reasonably assured the
largest portions of our user base have migrated to newer, supported

On the other hand, I think it'd be fine to wait and archive all the
1.4.x versions at the same time. Mainly, what I'd be concerned about
is leaving these versions around indefinitely, and allowing bug
reports against them to pollute the JIRA, reducing its utility, long
after we've stopped supporting it.

In short, I'm fine with playing by ear, as long as they get archived
eventually (maybe when we EOL 1.5.x?)

Christopher L Tubbs II
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Sean Busbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: