> You're planning to document how GitHub tech would be used to make releases on these repositories? And, we're in agreement that JIRA would not be used at all for these repositories?
I think these repos are simple but I am happy to document any GH issues workflows that are unclear to contributors. The use of GH issues for these repos can be made clear at https://accumulo.apache.org/how-to-contribute/ I agree that JIRA should no longer be used for the secondary repositories. Anyone who makes a new JIRA issue for these repos can just be told to use GitHub instead. On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:40 PM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > After the rest of the discussion, I feel like I need to be explicit (so, > I'm sorry if I'm being pedantic and we're already in agreement here): > > You're planning to document how GitHub tech would be used to make releases > on these repositories? And, we're in agreement that JIRA would not be used > at all for these repositories? > > In short, +0 as long as the process for releasing software is clear, I > don't have issues with the process using different tooling than we > presently use (although, still don't see the benefit to changing). > > > On 3/1/18 2:41 PM, Mike Walch wrote: > >> 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 >>> >>> >>
