On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:50 AM Josh Elser<josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote:
Christopher wrote:
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:09 PM Josh Elser<josh.el...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher wrote:
Hi all, it looks like https://gitbox.apache.org is up and running.
From what I understand, this provides bi-directional mirroring
between
GitHub repos and ASF repos, and would allow us to manage GitHub
issues
and
PRs by adding labels and milestones to them.
Personally, I think this would be helpful, especially as we use
GitHub
more
and more for pull requests / code reviews.
Github's review interface is my favored method of code review, but it
seems like you're also suggesting that we adopt GH issues (or is that
just some passing comment about Gitbox functionality?). I think our
current process of JIRA and Github works just fine.
Agreed, it does work fine. I'm not suggesting we adopt GH issues. But,
if
we ever did, this would be a prerequisite to using GH issues
effectively.
I personally prefer GH issues over JIRA, but if I were to propose that,
it
would be after we've adjusted to this switch, and I would suggest we do
it
gradually and organically... similar to how we transitioned from RB to
GH
for reviews. Technically, we still have RB, but we just don't use it
because GH is better.
In any case, I'm not proposing we start using GH issues, or even make
it
an
option, right now. For now, I'm just thinking it would benefit
management
of PRs (among the other, lesser, benefits I list).
Ok, migrating to GH issues was just a data point for now.
What problems do we have as a project which labels and milestones
would
solve? Otherwise, this just seems like change for change's sake.
I think not being able to add labels and milestones is itself a
problem.
It
makes organizing/tracking/searching PRs harder. Certainly, it's much
harder
to navigate to the corresponding JIRA issue (if one was mentioned), and
view that information there, rather than simply see it on the PR
itself.
I don't agree with the assessment that it's much harder to open the JIRA
issue in another browser tab, but perhaps that's just me. I think having
relevant project tracking information shared across two separate systems
is a recipe for disaster.
In addition to label and milestone, it also lets us use "assignees",
which
I think is useful to track committers who are working on merging the
PR,
and "projects", which I don't think is very useful.
IMO, someone saying "I'm working on merging this" is sufficient.
I think using GitBox would also allow us to close PRs without adding a
dummy commit.
Might be nice, but doing a dummy commit or asking the author to close it
is not onerous.
It would also allow us to push directly to GH and optionally do merges
and
edits from the GitHub UI, which lowers the bar for committers to make
small
changes or merge changes. Being able to push directly to GH also gives
more
options to people who might have a good GH connection, but a poor ASF
connection.
That would be nice -- GH does have some nice push-button integrations
here.
It also puts us in a good position to self-service Travis CI and other
GH
apps, as GitBox service matures and INFRA provides more self-service
features.
Thanks for listing these points.
I don't see this as having sufficient value to disrupt our existing
workflow. The points you raised are primarily convenience issues, not
flaws in our JIRA workflow. Given the overall "low" activity on the
project, I don't see a point in disrupting what has been working for us
and what the gray-beards are used to doing.
I guess I just don't see it as much of a disruption. There's the switching
cost, which is pretty small**, but after that, there's not really any
downside. We wouldn't lose anything, but would gain some things. However
small they might be, they can add up.
In any case, I'm also fine waiting for now... to see how GitBox matures.
This is actually far more important for Fluo (which uses GH issues) than
for Accumulo. I opened a similar discussion on the Fluo dev list, and if
Fluo switches to GitBox, we can provide feedback here to how it all worked
out, if we want to revisit this later.
**Just a change in URL for the repo for anybody not actively involved in
working with INFRA to make the switch happen.
If we want to use this, we can put in requests to INFRA to move our
repos
over to this service rather than the current git service.
INFRA has responded to my question saying they'll support use of this
on
a
first-come first-serve basis. I think it might be worth it. Some of
the
transition might be self service (GitBox allows PMCs to set up their
own
repos), but at the very least, we'd have to request INFRA to add our
PMC
to
the list of participating projects and have them remove the old one
once
the transition is complete.
