Late to this thread, but wanted to offer my 2 cents.  Having done several
releases, the search and bulk edit features of Jira were really key.
Moving all those issues is really the worst part of doing a release,
because you have to open each one and try to understand enough about it to
make a decision.   Some tickets are assigned to 1.7, 1.8 and 2.0, some are
1.8 and 2.0, some were only 1.8.  You have to bulk edit each distinct
combination. I am unsure what the GH would be except to edit them 1 by 1.
Although if we cleaned up old issues it wouldn't be as big a deal.

I would be willing to try it out better GH integration.  I love the PR
review.

Mike

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 7:54 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote:

> 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.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to