Hi Jorge,
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 08:55:03 +0100 Jorge Cardoso Leitão <jorgecarlei...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > FWIW, the amount of bureaucracy that goes into JIRA is a major contributing > factor for the reduction of my time commitment to this project by 80%+. Can you expand a bit on this? In particular, which aspects of using JIRA feel bureaucratic? Is it the requirement to create a new issue for each PR? Or is it other concerns (such as the UI for entering or searching issues)? I can't say I like JIRA myself, but at least it provides the classification and navigation features that I would expect from an issue tracker. The Github issue tracker AFAIK is rudimentary and not really practical when a project has accumulated many issues (but they may have changed this recently). > The major challenge is that most discussions happen where PRs are created > and seen, which is on github, but JIRA and mailing list is used for other > types of decisions. In this model, how do we preserve curated information > about the decision process while at the same time leverage both JIRA and > github's capabilities? In my experience, discussion on JIRA is about the issue itself (for example diagnosing a bug or discussing a feature), then discussion on the PR is about the implementation. JIRA discussions are generally readable by users (and indeed, users often participate) while PR discussions are really for developers of the project. > OTOH, asking contributors to create a jira account > and committers to add the person as contributor, as well as the email spam > and the merge process is a large barrier. FWIW, I've set up a mail filter that sends all "work logged" automated mail to the trashbin. I agree it's unfortunate that developers have to do that. I also have other qualms with the Apache JIRA configuration, such as the fact that "labels" (keywords) are shared between all projects, so there is essentially a million of them with no effort at taxonomy. > IMO the foundation could be clearer wrt to what does it mean with > information being preserved and available (e.g. on apache servers?) and if > yes, follow it through by hosting all their projects on their own github / > gitlab / whatever, where issues and PRs are on the same platform, and offer > SSO for contributors as a way to prove identity across the system. But that > is also a complex operation with a lot of unknowns... From what I see of the ASF's velocity, I wouldn't expect such a large breakthrough in the short future. (this is not trying to badmouth the ASF, just a pragmatic evaluation) Regards Antoine.
