Mike Miller wrote:
I think there are many benefits already mentioned that would make it worth
the switch. I would add frames to the list of annoyances in JIRA.
> I think having relevant project tracking information shared across two
separate systems is a recipe for disaster.
This sounds like our current setup... GitHub + JIRA no? If we had an easy
to migrate open issues than JIRA just becomes an archive. Might be a good
chance to clean up old tickets too.
No, GH is only supplementary. JIRA is the "source system" for tracking
Accumulo as a project. But, this isn't a discussion about switching to
Github issues, as Christopher clarified earlier. That's a whole other
can of worms I definitely don't want to open.
If a transition to Gitbox is paving the way to move to issues, that's a
different issue. I'd have more concerns WRT how we do project mgmt in
that case.
> 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 would argue this as a reason to switch - more convenience for new
developers should be a priority over propagating the habits of current
developers.
As a gray-beard, I don't really have much other ability than to just
disagree with you on this point.
> without a specific hole in our current process, this just seems likely to
create confusion about how to use it.
I agree, there would be confusion at first and an adjustment period (like
any change would require). I would also agree there aren't holes in the
current process but this change wouldn't fill a hole, it would fix flaws in
the process. Requiring 2 accounts and unnecessary copy and pasting between
the sites are flaws in the process.
Does GitHub issues have custom filters? If not, then that is one thing we
would lose. But these may not be needed if it just works better.
... what flaws? All I've seen so far are UX complaints. Have I failed to
grasp something? What copy-pasting are you referring to?
