On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry for the top-post. > > I really appreciate the numbered list below, Keith. Specifically the answers > to #1 and #4 make me very happy. > > I think #5 needs some a little more concrete (IMO, you should just decide > what it should be).
My wording "proposal suggest" was misleading and redundant. The entire proposal is a suggestion. However in the proposal I think it is very concrete about using labels for versions. Please let me know if there is a place where the proposal is not concrete about this. > > #6 +1 to a message to private, this is how Apache general requests this be > done). > > While I can appreciate your stance on #3 and I think I would not call it a > blocker either, this is probably something worth the 15-30 minutes of > investigation. Sean/Mike may feel more strongly than I do. Learning from > others, even if it just dropping an email to dev@spark directly to ask the > question goes a long way.. > > > On 3/7/18 10:55 AM, Keith Turner wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> -0 as an initial reaction because I'm still not convinced that GH issues >>>> provides any additional features or better experience than JIRA does, >>>> and >>>> this change would only serve to fragment an already bare community. >>>> >>>> My concerns that would push that -0 to a -1 include (but aren't limited >>>> to): >>>> >>>> * Documentation/website update for the release process >>>> * Validation that our release processes on JIRA has similar >>>> functionality on >>>> GH issues >>>> * Updated contributor docs (removing JIRA related content, add an >>>> explanation as to the change) >>>> * CONTRIBUTING.md updated on relevant repos >>> >>> >>> I opened the following PR with a proposal for how we could start using >>> github. >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website/pull/59 >> >> >> There were lots of valid concerns raised during this discussion. The >> concerns shaped the proposal I submitted. Rather than reply to them >> individually in different emails I am collecting them all here and >> sharing my thoughts about them. >> >> >> 1. How do we release? >> >> JIRA is used in three important ways for releases : setting blockers, >> triaging issues, and generating release notes. I think the proposal >> addresses all three. >> >> 2. Will we document contributor guidelines to avoid confusion? >> >> What is expected of contributors is clearly documented. >> >> 3. Can someone investigate how Spark operates before switching? >> >> That would be great if someone volunteered to do this and wrote up >> their >> findings. However if no one volunteers, then I do not think this >> should >> be a blocker. There are many other projects that would be worthy of >> investigation also. >> >> 4. What is the migration plan for existing issues? Will we have split >> issue >> tracker for years? >> >> The proposal documents migrating existing JIRA issues as they are >> worked. >> This means that existing JIRA issues that are never worked will never >> migrate. After all branches are released, JIRA can be put in read only >> mode >> (only PMC can change it). It will be left active for reference and >> migration of existing issues. >> >> 5. How will we handle fix versions? >> >> The proposal suggest using issue labels in github for this. Also >> suggest >> using a prefix on fix version labels to make them sort last. >> >> 6. How will we handle security issues? >> >> We need to clearly document on our website how users should report >> security issues. I am not sure this is done at the moment. Since >> this >> is infrequent I think we can handle this on the private list. I think >> our workflow should be optimized for frequent actions and not >> infrequent >> ones. >> >> 7. Should we switch all repos to GH issues except Accumulo core? >> >> I think this a good example of how design by committee can go >> wrong. This is a really confusing solution that does not >> improve our workflow, so the benefits are not clear to me. >> >>> >>>> >>>> - Josh >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/15/18 12:05 PM, Mike Walch wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues. >>>>> GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial >>>>> period, >>>>> the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using >>>>> Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period. >>>>> >>>> >
