I just used it on my fork and works nicely. Thanks, Max. +1 for probot
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 10:55 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> wrote: > +1 for probot. How about we try it with > https://github.com/cchantep/probot-jira for example? > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 8:28 PM Daniel Imberman <daniel.imber...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > +1 for probot, the k8s community has a pretty slick GitHub automation > > system as well we should look into. > > > > via Newton Mail [ > > > https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2 > > ] > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 2:09 PM, Maxime Beauchemin < > > maximebeauche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Quick note as I'm playing with Probot for Superset. It's possible to > catch > > all sorts of Github event and trigger all sorts of side effects with it. > > > > On the Superset side we're looking to enable automation around Github > > comments and labeling. It's also offers potential around enabling people > > (PMs, contributors) without write access to the repo to create > > labels, assign tasks, ... > > > > More about it here: > > https://probot.github.io/ > > > > Max > > > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 2:14 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Agree that Github issue are nicely integrated with the code, I don't > > > particularly mind which issue tracking system I use as long as it has > > good > > > integration. > > > > > > The nice part about github issues that now with github actions we could > > > automate more and have full control over it. And a lot of this works > > > automagically (Fixes #NN) closes the issue when merged. > > > > > > On the other hand It is very limiting. I see it would have been > difficult > > > to follow the cherry-picking workflow where we decide after the merge > if > > we > > > want to cherry-pick or not. Issue can belong to only one milestone - so > > > then we'd have to start messing around with labels etc. I don't have > > > particularly strong feelings about moving out of JIRA and I think the > > > benefits are very small compared to the hassle of changing. > > > > > > There is a lot of "boring" work in the commiter's live - mostly > connected > > > with reviewing list of issues in one of the systems (sometimes many > times > > > over) and reacting somehow. I think it would be much more enjoyable if > we > > > had - even manually driven - some automation in place for that. I think > > > about a small but well-rounded tool that could help with managing state > > of > > > the several different system we use. > > > > > > I'd love a small "committer" CLI that we will be able to query the > state > > of > > > the issues and use it to perform particular tasks - i.e. checking the > > list > > > of open issues assigned to me, issues that I have recently interacted > > with, > > > issues that are in the area of my interest - viewable and discoverable > > via > > > the CLI, and then manageable from the same CLI. I'd love for example to > > see > > > all the issues that I already merged but they are not resolved yet. Or > > all > > > the issues for which build failed recently but they are likely > transient > > > rebuilds etc. etc. Something that could be a small (CLI) dashboard for > > all > > > the committers where all the typical use-cases for the committers are > > > automated. This way we could not only make our life easier but also we > > > could start promoting some good committer practices, and we could > > introduce > > > some more sophisticated strategies for dealing with issues (vs. current > > > anyone does anything strategy). For example sharing the issues between > > > committers, auto-assigning reviewers etc. etc. Of course this can all > be > > > done without such tool, but that would be far less fun if those are > > > "written down" and "manually followed" processes rather than automated > > > ones. > > > > > > And of course myself or anyone could develop such tool myself - but > it's > > > quite an effort and I think it would only pay off if the effort could > be > > > divided by a number of people contributing, but benefits multiplied by > a > > > number of people using it :). > > > > > > As we will have more committers (hopefully) we might have more need for > > > such tool. Is this a good time to start thinking about it? > > > > > > J. > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:12 PM Sergio Kef <sergio...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > On a slightly irrelevant note, do we ever close tickets as > > > non-reproducable > > > > or will-not-fix? > > > > Last time I was going through open tickets I found dozens that seemed > > > > really old, really not-gonna-happen or already fixed. > > > > What actions could we take to decrease this gap? > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > S. > > > > > > > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 21:25, Tomasz Urbaszek < > > > tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I can agree that GitHub issues may get spammy but I other projects > > deal > > > > > with it somehow. And as a user I like the simplicity of creating an > > > > issue. > > > > > As per Jira, I think a good part of it is the ability to link > issues > > > > across > > > > > different ASF project (but I don't think it's a killer feature). > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 9:12 PM Bolke de Bruin <bdbr...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I don’t like Jira particularly but I like GitHub issues even > less. > > > Both > > > > > > don’t feel right. And yes GitHub issues get spammy very quickly. > > The > > > > > hurdle > > > > > > gets so low that it functions as an alternative to the mailing > > list, > > > > far, > > > > > > and chat. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 November 2019 at 21:05:38, Ash Berlin-Taylor ( > a...@apache.org > > ) > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Getting creds for Jira might be tricky, though Infra may have > some > > > way > > > > of > > > > > > resolving issues when PR is merged (please don't Close, only ever > > > > Resolve > > > > > > as closed issues can't have FixVersion changed) > > > > > > > > > > > > This brings me on to another question: what do were actual use > Jira > > > for > > > > > > that couldn't (or shouldn't) be done with GitHub Issues? > > > > > > > > > > > > The main thing I can think of right now is the Fix version when > > > > resolving > > > > > > to say when we should backport a PR, but this could be achieved > > with > > > > > > Milestones in GitHub. > > > > > > > > > > > > (A fringe benefit is that most people won't have an ASF Jira > > account > > > so > > > > > > opening issues to ask questions is harder. "Benefit" as it avoids > > > issue > > > > > > spam for question.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there anything else? > > > > > > > > > > > > -A > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 November 2019 18:27:16 GMT, Tomasz Urbaszek < > > > > > > tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com> wrote: > > > > > > >Is there any possibility to use GitHub actions for that? > > > > > > >For example, the one that allows to "Automatically transition an > > > issue > > > > > > >to > > > > > > >done when a pull request whose name contains the issue key is > > > merged"? > > > > > > >Here is Atlassian repo: https://github.com/atlassian/gajira > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Bests, > > > > > > >Tomek > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 7:22 PM Bolke de Bruin < > bdbr...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I wrote that script. It’s cli only unfortunately. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On 18 November 2019 at 18:22:04, Dan Davydov > > > > > > >(ddavy...@twitter.com.invalid > > > > > > >> ) > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Wait this doesn't happen automatically!? I thought > way-back-when > > > > > > >someone > > > > > > >> wrote a script to automatically close the JIRA tickets (maybe > > that > > > > > > >script > > > > > > >> is not run when changes are merged via the UI). My apologies, > > will > > > > > > >close > > > > > > >> JIRAs in the future, I don't think I've closed any JIRA > tickets > > > > > > >manually. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 5:14 AM Jarek Potiuk > > > > > > ><jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > And yes. I was one of the culprits - I saw :(. Sorry about > > that > > > > > > >Kaxil. > > > > > > >> > Just hope we can streamline this :). > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 10:12 AM Jarek Potiuk > > > > > > ><jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Heartily agree with it ! > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > I try always to close the PRs but sometimes I got > distracted > > > and > > > > > > >forget > > > > > > >> > to > > > > > > >> > > resolve an issue - it happend several times that I > recalled > > it > > > > > > >few > > > > > > >> hours > > > > > > >> > > later that I have forgotten to resolve it. I hope it > happens > > > > > > >rarely - > > > > > > >> I'd > > > > > > >> > > love to know if I was one of the culprits here :). And > > > whenever > > > > I > > > > > > >> noticed > > > > > > >> > > some of the PRs are not closed but PR is merged by someone > > > else > > > > - > > > > > > >I > > > > > > >> > > sometimes close them. But it's not ideal of course. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > However simple it is - I think we are just humans and we > > will > > > > > > >forget > > > > > > >> from > > > > > > >> > > time to time. I was wondering if we can (yes, you guessed > > it) > > > > > > >automate > > > > > > >> it > > > > > > >> > > :). Either with JIRA/Github integration or some automated > > tool > > > > to > > > > > > >do it > > > > > > >> > > regularly and resolving all already merged tickets. And > the > > > more > > > > > > >> > > committers we are going to have, the more it makes sense > to > > > > > > >automate > > > > > > >> some > > > > > > >> > > of the work. The less you have to remember about your > > "chores" > > > > > > >the more > > > > > > >> > you > > > > > > >> > > can focus on the "real" stuff. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > I think there are a few unwritten rules that we have - > like > > > what > > > > > > >> version > > > > > > >> > > to set when we cherry-pick change to 1.10* . My > > understanding > > > is > > > > > > >that > > > > > > >> we > > > > > > >> > > should set fixed version to the first unreleased yet 1.10. > > > > > > >version. > > > > > > >> This > > > > > > >> > > problem will soon be gone, so maybe it's not worth solving > > it. > > > > > > >There > > > > > > >> are > > > > > > >> > > also some edge cases like bad fixes which got reverted and > > > > > > >reapplied > > > > > > >> but > > > > > > >> > I > > > > > > >> > > think other than that the automation of it can be rather > > > simple. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > And I think there are some scripts in "dev" that already > do > > > some > > > > > > >of > > > > > > >> that > > > > > > >> > - > > > > > > >> > > synchronising merges with JIRAs (but I don't think it's > > common > > > > > > >> knowledge > > > > > > >> > > and it's not regularly run). Maybe we can improve it > somehow > > > and > > > > > > >have > > > > > > >> it > > > > > > >> > > fully automated so that we do not even havet to think > about > > > it ? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > WDYT? Any ideas? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > J. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 1:19 AM Kaxil Naik < > > > kaxiln...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> We have some at > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Committers%27+Guide > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> The person who merges the PR to master is the one who > would > > > be > > > > > > >> > responsible > > > > > > >> > >> for resolving the JIRA issue as they can add the *target > > > > > > >version* > > > > > > >> based > > > > > > >> > on > > > > > > >> > >> what they think after reviewing the PR. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 12:12 AM Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy < > > > > > > >> > >> aizha...@apache.org> > > > > > > >> > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > I think it will be good to document the process. For > > > example, > > > > > > >who is > > > > > > >> > >> > responsible for closing Jira issues: folks who closed > > PR's > > > or > > > > > > >the > > > > > > >> ones > > > > > > >> > >> who > > > > > > >> > >> > opened? > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > If the documentation already exists, let's bring it > back > > to > > > > > > >> attention. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 4:06 PM Kaxil Naik > > > > > > ><kaxiln...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > Hi Committers, > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > Please make sure to close the Jira issues if the > > related > > > > PRs > > > > > > >are > > > > > > >> > >> merged. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > I am going through the Jira Reports (Image: > > > > > > >> > https://imgur.com/n50Ticx > > > > > > >> > >> ) > > > > > > >> > >> > and > > > > > > >> > >> > > was concerned with the gap between issues created & > > > > resolved > > > > > > >in > > > > > > >> > recent > > > > > > >> > >> > > months. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > However, I noticed while going through the jira > issues > > > that > > > > > > >most > > > > > > >> of > > > > > > >> > >> the > > > > > > >> > >> > PRs > > > > > > >> > >> > > related to the JIRAs have been resolved but the JIRA > is > > > not > > > > > > >> > resolved. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > Let's try to resolve all the issues when we merge the > > PR > > > :) > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > This will help the release manager too. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > Regards, > > > > > > >> > >> > > Kaxil > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > -- > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Jarek Potiuk > > > > > > >> > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software > > > > Engineer > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > > > > > >> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > -- > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Jarek Potiuk > > > > > > >> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software > > > Engineer > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > > > > > >> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Tomasz Urbaszek > > > > > > >Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer > > > > > > > > > > > > > >M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493> > > > > > > >E: tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com <tomasz.urbasz...@polidea.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Unique Tech > > > > > > >Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Tomasz Urbaszek > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer > > > > > > > > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493> > > > > > E: tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com <tomasz.urbasz...@polidea.com> > > > > > > > > > > Unique Tech > > > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > > > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> >
