What's the expected workflow if we use JIRA? I'm not clear about that. Currently I'll 1) submit the PR, 2) describe what's done in the PR in detail and refer to the related Github issues, 3) create the JIRA item by copying the PR description, 4) change the title of the PR to [MXNET-JIRA_ID]ORIGINAL_TITLE. During the process I find step-3/4 are somehow unnecessary.
Best, Xingjian ________________________________ From: Naveen Swamy <mnnav...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 3:26 AM To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests Whether to use Jira or not is a moot point now, I suggest lets discuss how to use Github/Jira effectively, to make it easy for contributors(new and veterans). Let us use it for 6 months or so and collect feedback, people who don't find it useful can start another VOTE. On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh my God, no... > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Anirudh <anirudh2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > There should be an easy way to translate all the existing github issues > > into work items in JIRA(Considering the work on labelling that is done > for > > github issues). > > Does the JIRA bot handle this ? > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Anyone can create a backlog item/JIRA ticket. > > > > > > Obvious cases might include: > > > > > > * Someone thinks of a task and (optionally) wants to develop it > > themselves, > > > so they create a backlog item and assign it to themself, putting it > into > > > "in progress" mode. > > > * Someone dreams up a large feature and wants to create an epic with 30 > > > subtasks, so they create the epic and its subtasks (grooming) > > > * Someone wants to just pick up a random pre-existing backlog item to > > work > > > on > > > > > > I do think that backlog items should be restricted to actual work items > > and > > > not general issue reporting, but I'm certainly open to how other Apache > > > projects like Spark do that. So far it seems like github issues do a > > > pretty good job of that. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Sheng Zha <szha....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Good points on keeping a public backlog. Should we expect new > > > contributors > > > > to create such backlog items? Or who should own the responsibility of > > > > creating backlog items? > > > > > > > > - Sent by my thumb > > > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Nan Zhu <zhunanmcg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > just giving an example about Chris's opinion (how JIRA would help > for > > > > more > > > > > new users) > > > > > > > > > > I can see Spark 2.4 is highly possible to include the nested column > > > > pruning > > > > > in parquet file from its JIRA ( > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502) [SPARK-4502] Spark SQL reads unneccesary nested fields ...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502> issues.apache.org When reading a field of a nested column from Parquet, SparkSQL reads and assemble all the fields of that nested column. This is unnecessary, as Parquet supports fine ... > > > > > > > > > > it's hard for me to have any source to get the similar expectation > > for > > > > MXNET > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > Nan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Chris Olivier < > > cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Almost all Apache projects use JIRA. It's been proven to work in > > > > >> open-source. > > > > >> Having backlog/development process public hopefully will help > > > adoption. > > > > >> Right now, what new users? Adoption is very slow, so I think it's > > > hard > > > > to > > > > >> argue that the current way of doing things is effective. > > > > >> > > > > >>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Sheng Zha <szha....@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Cool. Feel free to propose a change to the PR template. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> How would JIRA be less daunting to new users? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> -sz > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Chris Olivier < > cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> My $0.02 about the PR template. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I think it's a good idea. I think (just my opinion) is that the > > > > >> adoption > > > > >>>> is low because it started out too big and daunting. It may get > > more > > > > >>>> adoption if we started a little smaller -- with maybe two > > > checkboxes" > > > > >> and > > > > >>>> also didn't have a line at the top stating "Description", > because > > > that > > > > >>> feel > > > > >>>> skind of awkward and github inserts extended label info above it > > > > >>> sometimes. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Just an idea. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Sheng Zha <szha....@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> The PR template is designed for that and its poor adoption is > > > causing > > > > >>> the > > > > >>>>> same issue of missing information in PRs. My concern of using > > JIRA > > > is > > > > >>> that > > > > >>>>> more overhead would deter contribution and worsen the quality > of > > > > >>>>> description. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> -sz > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Nan Zhu <zhunanmcg...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> +1 on both suggestions > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> a bit concern is on the quality of JIRA which is created > > > > >> automatically > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> I can see a lot of PRs are not described comprehensively, if > we > > > just > > > > >>> post > > > > >>>>>> what in description to JIRA, it's error-propagating > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> but the quality of JIRA is a big topic worth more discussions > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Marco de Abreu < > > > > >>>>> marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Would it be possible to automatically create JIRA tickets > when > > a > > > > >>> GitHub > > > > >>>>>>> issue is being created? We could then mirror all comments the > > > same > > > > >> way > > > > >>>>> it's > > > > >>>>>>> happening in https://issues.apache.org/ issues.apache.org<https://issues.apache.org/> issues.apache.org Apache currently hosts two different issue tracking systems, Bugzilla and Jira. To find out how to report an issue for a particular project, please visit the project ... > > > jira/projects/MXNET/issues/ > > > > >>>>> MXNET-42 > > > > >>>>>>> but make sure that the bot works in both ways. A comment on > > > GitHub > > > > >>>>> would be > > > > >>>>>>> copied to JIRA and a JIRA comment to GitHub. I think this > would > > > be > > > > >>> good > > > > >>>>> as > > > > >>>>>>> a first step to start integration. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> -Marco > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:08 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > > > >>>>>>> marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> I also see this as a big advantage in terms of > transparency. I > > > > >>>>> personally > > > > >>>>>>>> will try to move away from any company internal issue > trackers > > > > >>> (except > > > > >>>>>>> for > > > > >>>>>>>> confidential cases) and instead work on Jira that is being > > > managed > > > > >> by > > > > >>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>> community. This allows everybody to see what is being worked > > on > > > > and > > > > >>>>> gives > > > > >>>>>>>> them the possibility to chime with ideas or suggestions. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> In my opinion, this obsoletes TT and SIM to a big extent. > It's > > > up > > > > >> to > > > > >>>>> you > > > > >>>>>>>> if you maintain multiple issue trackers or stick to one. If > > > > anybody > > > > >>>>> has a > > > > >>>>>>>> (non-confidential) issue that's related to my work on CI, I > > ask > > > > >> them > > > > >>> to > > > > >>>>>>>> create a GitHub issue instead of a company internal ticket > - I > > > > >> invite > > > > >>>>>>>> everybody to do the same. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> MXNet is an open source project and moving away from company > > > > >> internal > > > > >>>>>>>> trackers towards community driven ones is the next logical > > step > > > in > > > > >> my > > > > >>>>>>>> opinion. At the moment, everybody is working on their own > and > > > it's > > > > >>> hard > > > > >>>>>>> to > > > > >>>>>>>> see for external people (or even developer who are not part > of > > > the > > > > >>> same > > > > >>>>>>>> team) what we're actually working on. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> -Marco > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Naveen Swamy < > > > mnnav...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> I am +1 for using JIRA. Managing bigger projects within > MXNet > > > on > > > > >>> JIRA > > > > >>>>>>>>> brings openness to the project. MXNet Users and the > > > contributors > > > > >>> also > > > > >>>>>>> get > > > > >>>>>>>>> a > > > > >>>>>>>>> sense of where the project is heading. > > > > >>>>>>>>> Bigger Tasks can be divided into sub-tasks which > contributors > > > can > > > > >>> pick > > > > >>>>>>> up > > > > >>>>>>>>> small tasks based on their expertise on and contribute > > > > >>> independently. > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier < > > > > >>> cjolivie...@gmail.com > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The vote was discussed on private@ before the vote on > dev@, > > > and > > > > >>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>> vote > > > > >>>>>>>>>> went on for a very long time. There was ZERO resistance. > > No > > > > >> one > > > > >>>>>>>>> "snuck" > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it in or "slipped it by". > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This, hopefully, phases out both SIM and tt, which are > both > > > are > > > > >>> being > > > > >>>>>>>>> used > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in ways that aren't what they're even designed for, IMO. > > > > Trouble > > > > >>>>>>>>> tickets > > > > >>>>>>>>>> are being used as a backlog for my team, which is insane. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I've actually sent out a couple of mails on dev about > > contact > > > me > > > > >> if > > > > >>>>>>> you > > > > >>>>>>>>>> don't have access to JIRA. If you would like to > participate > > > in > > > > >> the > > > > >>>>>>>>>> direction of the project, please keep up with the dev > email > > > > list. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I gave you contributor permissions on JIRA, btw. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> . > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Aaron Markham < > > > > >>>>>>>>> aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm not quite sure if I have enough background on reasons > > for > > > > or > > > > >>>>>>>>> against > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this to vote in the next round, but my two cents: I > didn't > > > see > > > > >>> much > > > > >>>>>>>>>> debate > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> on why we need yet another tool for issues that we have > to > > > > >>> manually > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> maintain...the vote kind of slid in there without many > > > > >>> stakeholders > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> realizing what they were being signed up for. I was > > thinking, > > > > >>> sure, > > > > >>>>>>> if > > > > >>>>>>>>>> YOU > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> want to make jira tickets, go right ahead. I have two > > > internal > > > > >>>>>>>>> ticketing > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> systems to deal with already that assign tasks on MXNet, > > plus > > > > >>>>>>> GitHub. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jira > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> would be four. Happy to make it work, but I'll need fifth > > > tool > > > > >> to > > > > >>>>>>>>>> aggregate > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> communications and metrics between the other four tools! > > I'm > > > > >> only > > > > >>>>>>>>> sort of > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> joking. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I saw Chris's response, and ok the public visibility part > > > makes > > > > >>>>>>> sense, > > > > >>>>>>>>>> but > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> does this phase out any other overhead? Does it > integrate? > > > Jira > > > > >>> has > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> integration options so maybe we can eliminate some > > > overhead... > > > > >>> Like > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> something that hooks into the GitHub api and generates > jira > > > > >>> tickets > > > > >>>>>>> on > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> fly... I want to believe there's a plan that makes this > all > > > > >>> easier. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> What value I don't see is how we lower barriers to > > > contribution > > > > >>> and > > > > >>>>>>>>> make > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> more fluid for new users that could become contributors. > > > What's > > > > >>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>> story > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and value proposition? > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Also, I don't see any docs on the website or on github on > > how > > > > to > > > > >>>>>>> sign > > > > >>>>>>>>> up > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for jira, or how to contribute according to this new > > > > requirement > > > > >>>>>>>>> anywhere > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> on the site. Myself and new contributors wouldn't know > what > > > the > > > > >>>>>>>>> expected > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flow looks like because it's not really accessible. I now > > see > > > > >> the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> confluence wiki, but that's pretty much hidden from > anyone > > > > >>> browsing > > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> site or github and looking to contribute. Why is this > info > > on > > > > >>>>>>>>> confluence > > > > >>>>>>>>>> at > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> all? Why not in the docs on github that are rendered to > the > > > > >>> website? > > > > >>>>>>>>> Or > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> conversely, why is some of the info on github and on the > > > > >> website, > > > > >>> if > > > > >>>>>>>>> it > > > > >>>>>>>>>> is > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> being maintained and current only on confluence? > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> These are two separate issues really, but I think if you > > want > > > > >>>>>>> buy-in, > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> needs to be more transparent and obvious, and provide > clear > > > > >>> reasons > > > > >>>>>>>>> and > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> benefits to why you're asking for more overhead. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Aaron > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2018 21:14, "Eric Xie" <j...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> -1 > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> JIRA is ancient and arcane. This adds unnecessary > > overhead. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018/03/03 06:11:12, CodingCat < > coding...@apache.org> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This vote passes with 6 +1 votes (6 bindings) and no 0 > or > > > -1 > > > > >>>>>>>>> votes. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Binding +1: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris Olivier > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Indhu Bharathi > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Suneel Marthi > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yuan Tang > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Marco de Abreu > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sebastian Schelter > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vote thread: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/list. > > > html?d...@mxnet.apache.org:lte= > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1M:tracking%20code%20changes%20with%20JIRA%20by% > > > 20associatin > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> g%20pull%20requests > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I will continue with pushing the content to wiki and > take > > > it > > > > >>>>>>> into > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> practice > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
