I agree with Mike here, but to be clear, that's not what I was proposing. :)
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:35 PM Mike Walch <mwa...@apache.org> wrote: > I prefer GithHub issues over JIRA. Apache JIRA is slow, has a bloated UI, > and it's annoying that it doesn't remember my session and I have to > re-login daily. I think new developers (esp those unfamiliar with Apache) > are more likely to report/work on issues if they were on GitHub as most > non-Apache projects use GitHub and Apache JIRA requires an extra account. > I understand two issue trackers can be pain (esp for the person creating > release notes) but I would rather encourage more issue reporting and > contributions then speed up the process of creating release notes. We could > also move over the remaining open JIRA issues if GH issues became more > heavily used. > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:09 PM Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > (just making sure my point is clear and that Mike's is another unique > > point that I hadn't actually considered..) > > > > I meant confusion about what information would be encapsulated in JIRA > > and what information would be encapsulated in GH metadata. > > > > e.g. we missed issue $x in the 2.x.x. release notes because it had the > > "releasenotes" GH label and not a "releasenotes" JIRA label (or vice > > versa). I think a similar issue would come up with "fixVersion" and > > "milestone". > > > > Our use of JIRA is pretty well hashed out, and I think it works well for > > us. To my earlier point, without a specific hole in our current process, > > this just seems likely to create confusion about how to use it. The > > points you referenced to me don't seem virulent enough to justify the > > switch. > > > > Mike Drob wrote: > > > Changing the repo URL seems fairly disruptive to me, fwiw. Would need > to > > > send notice to the dev list with instructions how to update your git > > > remotes probably. > > > > > > On Fri, May 5, 2017, 10:30 AM Christopher<ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > >> 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. > > >>>>>> > > > > > >
