I would like to start up this discussion again. I don't think we have reached consensus on moving the primary Accumulo repo to GitHub issues. The primary repo has common workflows (i.e creating issues that affect multiple versions) that don't easily transition to GitHub issues. I have heard several solutions but no consensus.
As for moving our secondary repos (listed below), this seems much easier and I haven't heard any concerns so far. Does anyone have concerns about moving these repos? https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker https://github.com/apache/accumulo-examples https://github.com/apache/accumulo-testing https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website https://github.com/apache/accumulo-wikisearch On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Mike Walch <mwa...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a trial. How > do > > we > > > do a release? What does aggregating issues fixed in a particular > version > > > look like? > > > > > > > You can tag GH issues with a version but I think it's best to just go > > through commit history > > to compile the release notes. This should already be done as there is no > > guarantee > > even with Jira that all issues were labeled correctly. If you are using > > GitHub issues, all issue > > numbers in commits link back to the issue or pull request which we don't > > have with Jira right > > now. > > > > > This gets to an issue I have. What's our source of truth about "X is fixed > in Y" during the trial? I have been assuming that JIRA is currently our > source of truth, but maybe that's wrong. Is it the release notes? > > IMHO, Git is a poor choice for the source of truth due to the immutability > of commit messages, at least in ASF contexts since we can't do force pushes > (in at least some branches). > > > -- > busbey >
