Just a comment here to clarify the labels from someone who has been using both - ASF (and not only) JIRA and GitHub.
The experience from JIRA labels might be awfully misleading. The JIRA labels are a mess in the ASF because they are shared between projects and everyone can create a new label. "Mess" is actually quite an understatement IMHO. The labels in GitHub Issues are "per-project" and they can only be added and modified by maintainers (and only maintainers and "issue triagers" can actually assign them other than the initial assignment when you create an issue. Thanks to that, it is much easier to agree on the common "conventions" to use and avoid creating new ones accidentally. We have quite a success with using the labels in Airflow as we use some of the stuff below: Re - some fancy enforcement/management, yeah. There are good techniques to control how/when the labels are attached: 1) You can create separate templates for Bugs/Features that can have different labels pre-assigned. See here: https://github.com/apache/airflow/tree/main/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE - this way you can delegate to the users to make basic "label choice" when they enter issues (though limited - 4-5 types of issues to choose from is really maximum what is reasonable). 2) The same "Issue Templates" already have the option to choose "selectable fields" at entry - you can define free-form entries, drop-down, checkboxes and a few others. This is as close as it can get to "fields". Then (this is something you'd have to code) you could easily write or use an existing GithubAction or bot that will assign the labels based on the initial selection done by the user at entry. We have not done it yet but we might. 3) In PRs you can (and we do that in Airflow) write your bot or use existing GitHub Actions to automatically select the labels based on the "files" that have been changed in the PR: We are doing precisely that in airflow and it works pretty well: https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/.github/boring-cyborg.yml You are in full control, and you can choose the convention and approach for the project. There are literally hundreds of GitHub Actions out there and you can easily write a new one to manage it and you do not need anything but PR merged to the repository to enable and configure those actions. As maintainers, you do not have to create an INFRA JIRA(ehm!) tickets to manage them. You do not have to share anything with other projects. That's my 2 cents :) J. On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 5:45 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: > Maybe controversial: I think some things implemented "via labels" > shouldn't get full credit so I suggested changing them from green to yellow > :-) > > There's a really big difference between a free-form label and a field > where you know that there is exactly one value and the value is from a > limited set of options. For example priorities could be missing, duplicate > (both "P1" and "P2") or invented ("P8") unless labels have the ability to > have some fancy enforcement (I haven't looked at this). Same for resolution > status (is "Not a problem" just a label added as commentary or is it a > resolution status?) and issue type (something could be marked "bug" and > "feature request"). > > Kenn > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 8:38 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Great. I added a few items to the "summary of discussion" even though >> they weren't discussed here just to identify things that I care about and >> how you might do them in GitHub Issues. >> >> Kenn >> >> On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 6:20 PM Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy < >> aizha...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Hey all, >>> >>> I summarized the discussion in this document[1]. >>> >>> IMO a lot of the concerns raised can be worked around (multiple >>> milestones, components, tags, sub-issues), while the biggest benefit will >>> be decreasing the barrier for new users to contribute and have better >>> discoverability and linkage between code, issues and PRs. >>> >>> Please assign your priority levels for the various features in the >>> comparison table. I left it out because I have a clear bias here : ) >>> >>> Next steps would be to decide whether (1) to move, and (2) to copy over >>> JIRA issues. IMO, Airflow's approach to not copy everything will be the >>> right choice. >>> >>> [1] >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_n7gboVbSKPs-CVcHzADgg8qpNL9igiHqUPCmiOslf0/edit# >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 2:30 PM Brian Hulette <bhule...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for volunteering to pick this up Aizhamal, while I'm interested >>>> in this change happening I don't have the bandwidth to push it along. >>>> >>>> I think there was another point where we're missing consensus: how >>>> would we deal with existing jiras. Do we write some automation to port >>>> everything, or just flip the switch and encourage users/devs to port active >>>> jiras over to GitHub? >>>> >>>> Manual porting pros: >>>> - Ambiguous situations get human attention. >>>> - Tickets with no interested parties will be implicitly cleared out of >>>> the backlog. >>>> - No need to write automation for porting tools. >>>> Manual porting cons: >>>> - Unambiguous situations get (unnecessary) human attention. >>>> >>>> A compromise might be to build a simple tool for porting jiras, but >>>> don't automatically run it on everything. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 6:04 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I also think that we are at the point where a document describing them >>>>> side-by-side is needed. I would very much like to help. I strongly support >>>>> moving to GitHub Issues. >>>>> >>>>> I'm less concerned about pros/cons (I think the one big pro of >>>>> "everyone knows it and already has an account" outweighs almost any con) >>>>> but I want to build a very clear plan of how we will map Jira features to >>>>> GitHub features. I use quite a lot of Jira's features. In particular, a >>>>> lot >>>>> of things seem like they'll become conventions around labels, which I >>>>> expect to often be low enough data quality that we would just not >>>>> bother, unless we can control it a bit. >>>>> >>>>> I eagerly await the link! Feel free to share very early :-) >>>>> >>>>> Kenn >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 1:48 PM Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy < >>>>> aizha...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think I am enthusiastic enough to help with the doc :) will share >>>>>> the link soon. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:12 AM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't know if we have consensus, but it seems that some people are >>>>>>> quite supportive (myself included), and some are ambivalent. The only >>>>>>> major con I can see is that github doesn't support tagging an issue >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> multiple milestones (but it's unclear how important that is). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would suggest that someone enthusiastic about this proposal put >>>>>>> together a doc where we can enumerate the pros and cons and once the >>>>>>> list seems complete we can bring it back to the list for further >>>>>>> discussion and/or a vote (if needed, likely not). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 9:27 AM Alexey Romanenko >>>>>>> <aromanenko....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > I’m not sure that we have a consensus on this. Since this thread >>>>>>> initially was started to discuss and gather some feedback then I think >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> would be great to have a summary with pros and cons of this migration. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > — >>>>>>> > Alexey >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On 13 Jan 2022, at 00:11, Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy < >>>>>>> aizha...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Hi all, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Is there a consensus to migrate to GitHub? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 9:17 AM Brian Hulette <bhule...@google.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 1:14 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 11:50 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre < >>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> No problem for me. The only thing I don’t like with GitHub >>>>>>> issues is that fact that it’s not possible to “assign” several >>>>>>> milestones >>>>>>> to an issue. >>>>>>> >>>> When we maintain several active branch/version, it sucks (one >>>>>>> issue == one milestone), as we have to create several issue. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> This is a good point to consider. In Beam we often create >>>>>>> multiple issues anyhow when we intend to backport/cherrypick a fix. One >>>>>>> issue for the original fix and one each targeted cherrypick. This way >>>>>>> their >>>>>>> resolution status can be tracked separately. But it is nice for users >>>>>>> to be >>>>>>> able to go back and edit the original bug report to say which versions >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> affected and which are not. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> I looked into this a little bit. It looks like milestones don't >>>>>>> have to represent a release (e.g. they could represent some abstract >>>>>>> goal), >>>>>>> but they are often associated with releases. This seems like a >>>>>>> reasonable >>>>>>> field to map to "Fix Version/s" in jira, but jira does support >>>>>>> specifying >>>>>>> multiple releases. So one issue == one milestone would be a regression. >>>>>>> >> As Kenn pointed out though we often create a separate jira to >>>>>>> track backports anyway (even though we could just specify multiple fix >>>>>>> versions), so I'm not sure this is a significant blocker. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> If we want to use milestones to track abstract goals, I think >>>>>>> we'd be out of luck. We could just use labels, but the GitHub UI doesn't >>>>>>> present a nice burndown chart for those. See >>>>>>> https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/milestones vs. >>>>>>> https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/labels. FWIW jira doesn't have >>>>>>> great functionality here either. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Kenn >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Regards >>>>>>> >>>> JB >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > Le 10 déc. 2021 à 01:28, Kyle Weaver <kcwea...@google.com> a >>>>>>> écrit : >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > I’m in favor of switching to Github issues. I can’t think of >>>>>>> a single thing jira does better. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > Thanks Jarek, this is a really great resource [1]. For >>>>>>> another reference, the Calcite project is engaged in the same discussion >>>>>>> right now [2]. I came up with many of the same points independently >>>>>>> before >>>>>>> I saw their thread. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > When evaluating feature parity, we should make a distinction >>>>>>> between non-structured (text) and structured data. And we don’t need a >>>>>>> strict mechanical mapping for everything unless we’re planning on >>>>>>> automatically migrating all existing issues. I don’t see the point in >>>>>>> automatic migration, though; as Jarek pointed out, we’d end up >>>>>>> perpetuating >>>>>>> a ton of obsolete issues. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > • We use nested issues and issue relations in jira, but >>>>>>> as far as I know robots don’t use them and we don’t query them much, so >>>>>>> we’re not losing anything by moving from an API to plain English >>>>>>> descriptions: “This issue is blocked by issue #n.” Mentions show up >>>>>>> automatically on other issues. >>>>>>> >>>> > • For component, type, priority, etc., we can use >>>>>>> Github labels. >>>>>>> >>>> > • Version(s) affected is used inconsistently, and as >>>>>>> far as I know only by humans, so a simple English description is fine. >>>>>>> We >>>>>>> can follow the example of other projects and make the version affected a >>>>>>> part of the issue template. >>>>>>> >>>> > • For fix version, which we use to track which issues >>>>>>> we want to fix in upcoming releases, as well as automatically generate >>>>>>> release notes: Github has “milestones,” which can be marked on PRs or >>>>>>> issues, or both. >>>>>>> >>>> > • IMO the automatically generated JIRA release >>>>>>> notes are not especially useful anyway. They are too detailed for a >>>>>>> quick >>>>>>> summary, and not precise enough to show everything. For a readable >>>>>>> summary, >>>>>>> we use CHANGES.md to highlight changes we especially want users to know >>>>>>> about. For a complete list of changes, there’s the git commit log, >>>>>>> which is >>>>>>> the ultimate source of truth. >>>>>>> >>>> > • We’d only want to preserve reporter and assignee if >>>>>>> we’re planning on migrating everything automatically, and even then I >>>>>>> think >>>>>>> it’d be fine to compile a map of active contributors and drop the rest. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > As for the advantages of switching (just the ones off the top >>>>>>> of my head): >>>>>>> >>>> > • As others have mentioned, it’s less burden for new >>>>>>> contributors to create new issues and comment on existing ones. >>>>>>> >>>> > • Effortless linking between issues and PRs. >>>>>>> >>>> > • Github -> jira links were working for a short >>>>>>> while, but they seem to be broken at the moment. >>>>>>> >>>> > • Jira -> github links only show: “links to >>>>>>> GitHub Pull Request #xxxxx”. They don’t say the status of the PR, so you >>>>>>> have to follow the link to find out. Especially inconvenient when one >>>>>>> jira >>>>>>> maps to several PRs, and you have to open all the links to get a >>>>>>> summary of >>>>>>> what work was done. >>>>>>> >>>> > • When you mention a GH issue in a pull >>>>>>> request, a link to the PR will automatically appear on the issue, >>>>>>> including >>>>>>> not just the ID but also the PR’s description and status >>>>>>> (open/closed/draft/merged/etc.), and if you hover it will show a >>>>>>> preview as >>>>>>> well. >>>>>>> >>>> > • We frequently merge a PR and then forget to >>>>>>> mark the jira as closed. Whereas if a PR is linked to a GH issue using >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> “closes” keyword, the GH issue will automatically be closed [3]. >>>>>>> >>>> > • I don’t have to look up or guess whether a github >>>>>>> account and jira account belong to the same person. >>>>>>> >>>> > • There’s a single unified search bar to find issues, >>>>>>> PRs, and code. >>>>>>> >>>> > • Github enables markdown formatting everywhere, which >>>>>>> is more or less the industry standard, whereas Jira has its own bespoke >>>>>>> system [4]. >>>>>>> >>>> > • In GH issues, links to Github code snippets will >>>>>>> automatically display the code snippet inline. >>>>>>> >>>> > • GH labels are scoped to each project, whereas ASF >>>>>>> Jira labels are an unmanageable, infinitely growing namespace (see >>>>>>> “flake,” >>>>>>> “flaky,” “flakey,” “Flaky,” “flaky-test”...). >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > [1] >>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=191332632 >>>>>>> >>>> > [2] >>>>>>> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/calcite-dev/202112.mbox/%3CCAB%3DJe-EuaijDjwb6umU_N2TaqFZawE%2BUbgZAgZYvrgPFypfAYQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E >>>>>>> >>>> > [3] >>>>>>> https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue#linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue-using-a-keyword >>>>>>> >>>> > [4] >>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=191332632 >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> https://jira.atlassian.com/secure/WikiRendererHelpAction.jspa?section=all >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 9:13 AM Alexey Romanenko < >>>>>>> aromanenko....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>> > Many thanks for details, Jarek! >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > Actually, your experience proves that the full data transfer >>>>>>> is very expensive (if even possible) and not necessary, especially >>>>>>> taking >>>>>>> the fact that the number of Beam Jira issues is a couple of orders more >>>>>>> than Airflow one. So, very likely that we will end up by living with >>>>>>> two >>>>>>> issue trackers, at least for some time, to avoid issue duplications and >>>>>>> have an access to old ones. This can be very confusing. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > In the same time, except the argument of “one tool for >>>>>>> everything”, which is quite strong for sure, I don’t see any other >>>>>>> advantages of GH issues over Jira issues. Also, the more important is >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> to lose what we have for now, as Jan mentioned below. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > So, my vote for now is -0 since it has significant pros and >>>>>>> cons and the final impact is not evident. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > — >>>>>>> >>>> > Alexey >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > > On 8 Dec 2021, at 01:38, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>>> > >> Do I understand correctly that this transition (if it will >>>>>>> happen) includes the transfer of all Beam Jira archive to GitHub issues >>>>>>> with a proper statuses/comments/refs/etc? If not, what are the options? >>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > Suggestion from the experience of Airflow again - you can >>>>>>> look it up >>>>>>> >>>> > > in our notes. >>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > We've tried it initially to copy the issues manually or in >>>>>>> bulk, but >>>>>>> >>>> > > eventually we decided to tap into the wisdom and >>>>>>> cooperation of our >>>>>>> >>>> > > community. >>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > We migrated some (not many) important things only and asked >>>>>>> our users >>>>>>> >>>> > > to move the important issues if they think they are still >>>>>>> >>>> > > relevant/important to them. We closed the JIRA for entry >>>>>>> and left the >>>>>>> >>>> > > issues in JIRA in read-only state so that we could always >>>>>>> refer to >>>>>>> >>>> > > them if needed. >>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > So rather than proactively copy the issues, we asked the >>>>>>> users to make >>>>>>> >>>> > > the decision which issues are important to them and >>>>>>> proactively move >>>>>>> >>>> > > it and we left an option of reactive moving if someone came >>>>>>> back to >>>>>>> >>>> > > the issue later. >>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > That turned out to be a smart decision considering the >>>>>>> effort it would >>>>>>> >>>> > > require to smartly move the issues vs. the results >>>>>>> achieved. And >>>>>>> >>>> > > helped us to clean some "stale/useless/not important" >>>>>>> issues. >>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > We've had 1719 open JIRA issues when we migrated. Over the >>>>>>> course of >>>>>>> >>>> > > ~1.5 years (since about April 2020) we've had ~140 issues >>>>>>> that refer >>>>>>> >>>> > > to any of the JIRA issues >>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed+%22https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%22+ >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>> > > Currently we have > 4500 GH issues (3700 closed, 800 >>>>>>> opened). >>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > This means that roughly speaking only < 10% of original >>>>>>> open JIRA >>>>>>> >>>> > > issues were actually somewhat valuable (roughly speaking of >>>>>>> course) >>>>>>> >>>> > > and they were < 5% of today's numbers. Of course some of >>>>>>> the new GH >>>>>>> >>>> > > issues duplicated those JIRA ones. But not many I think, >>>>>>> especially >>>>>>> >>>> > > that those issues in JIRA referred mostly to older Airflow >>>>>>> versions. >>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > One more comment for the migration - I STRONGLY recommend >>>>>>> using well >>>>>>> >>>> > > designed templates for GH issues from day one. That >>>>>>> significantly >>>>>>> >>>> > > improves the quality of issues - and using Discussions as >>>>>>> the place >>>>>>> >>>> > > where you move unclear/not reproducible issues (and for >>>>>>> example >>>>>>> >>>> > > guiding users to use discussions if they have no clearly >>>>>>> reproducible >>>>>>> >>>> > > case). This significantly reduces the "bad issue overload" >>>>>>> (see also >>>>>>> >>>> > > more detailed comments in >>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=191332632 >>>>>>> ). >>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > I personally think a well designed issue entry process for >>>>>>> new issues >>>>>>> >>>> > > is more important than migrating old issues in bulk. >>>>>>> Especially if you >>>>>>> >>>> > > will ask users to help - as they will have to make a >>>>>>> structured entry >>>>>>> >>>> > > with potentially more detailed information/reproducibility) >>>>>>> or they >>>>>>> >>>> > > will decide themselves that opening a github discussion is >>>>>>> better than >>>>>>> >>>> > > opening an issue if they do not have a reproducible case. >>>>>>> Or they will >>>>>>> >>>> > > give up if too much information is needed (but this means >>>>>>> that their >>>>>>> >>>> > > issue is essentially not that important IMHO). >>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > But this is just friendly advice from the experience of >>>>>>> those who did >>>>>>> >>>> > > it quite some time ago :) >>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > J. >>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 1:08 AM Brian Hulette < >>>>>>> bhule...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>> > >> >>>>>>> >>>> > >> At this point I just wanted to see if the community is >>>>>>> interested in such a change or if there are any hard blockers. If we do >>>>>>> go >>>>>>> down this path I think we should port jiras over to GH Issues. You're >>>>>>> right >>>>>>> this isn't trivial, there's no ready-made solution we can use, we'd >>>>>>> need to >>>>>>> decide on a mapping for everything and write a tool to do the >>>>>>> migration. It >>>>>>> sounds like there may be other work in this area we can build on (e.g. >>>>>>> Airflow may have made a tool we can work from?). >>>>>>> >>>> > >> >>>>>>> >>>> > >> I honestly don't have much experience with GH Issues so I >>>>>>> can't provide concrete examples of better usability (maybe Jarek can?). >>>>>>> From my perspective: >>>>>>> >>>> > >> - I hear a lot of grumbling about jira, and a lot of >>>>>>> praise for GitHub Issues. >>>>>>> >>>> > >> - Most new users/contributors already have a GitHub >>>>>>> account, and very few already have an ASF account. It sounds silly, but >>>>>>> I'm >>>>>>> sure this is a barrier for engaging with the community. Filing an >>>>>>> issue, or >>>>>>> commenting on one to provide additional context, or asking a clarifying >>>>>>> question about a starter task should be very quick and easy - I bet a >>>>>>> lot >>>>>>> of these interactions are blocked at the jira registration page. >>>>>>> >>>> > >> >>>>>>> >>>> > >> Brian >>>>>>> >>>> > >> >>>>>>> >>>> > >> On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 9:04 AM Alexey Romanenko < >>>>>>> aromanenko....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>> > >>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>> Do I understand correctly that this transition (if it >>>>>>> will happen) includes the transfer of all Beam Jira archive to GitHub >>>>>>> issues with a proper statuses/comments/refs/etc? If not, what are the >>>>>>> options? >>>>>>> >>>> > >>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>> Since this transfer looks quite complicated at the first >>>>>>> glance, what are the real key advantages (some concrete examples are >>>>>>> very >>>>>>> appreciated) to initiate this process and what are the show-stoppers >>>>>>> for us >>>>>>> with a current Jira workflow? >>>>>>> >>>> > >>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>> — >>>>>>> >>>> > >>> Alexey >>>>>>> >>>> > >>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>> On 6 Dec 2021, at 19:48, Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>> > >>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>> +1 on migrating to GH issues. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>> We will need to update our release process. Hopefully >>>>>>> it'll make it simpler. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>> On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 2:35 AM Jarek Potiuk < >>>>>>> ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> Just to add a comment on those requirements Kenneth, >>>>>>> looking into the >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> near future. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> Soon GitHub issues will open for GA a whole new way of >>>>>>> interacting >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> with the issues (without removing the current way) which >>>>>>> will greatly >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> improve iI think all aspects of what You mentioned). The >>>>>>> issues (and >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> associated projects) will gain new capabilities: >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> * structured metadata that you will be able to define >>>>>>> (much better >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> than unstructured labels) >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> * table-like visualisations which will allow for fast, >>>>>>> bulk, >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> keyboard-driven management >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> * better automation of workflows >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> * complete APIs to manage the issues (good for GitHub >>>>>>> Actions >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> integration for example) >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> Re: assigning by non-committers is one of the things >>>>>>> that won't work >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> currently. Only comitters can assign the issues, and >>>>>>> only if a user >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> commented on the issue. But it nicely works - when a >>>>>>> user comments "I >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> want to work on that issue", a committer assigns the >>>>>>> user. And It >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> could be easily automated as well. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> You can see what it will is about here: >>>>>>> https://github.com/features/issues >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> They are currently at the "Public Beta" and heading >>>>>>> towards General >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> Availability, but it is not available to "open" projects >>>>>>> yet. However >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> I have a promise from the GitHub Product manager (my >>>>>>> friend heads the >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> team implementing it) that ASF will be the first on the >>>>>>> list when the >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> public projects will be enabled, because it looks like >>>>>>> it will make >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> our triaging and organisation much better. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> J. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 1:46 AM Kenneth Knowles < >>>>>>> k...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> This sounds really good to me. Much more familiar to >>>>>>> newcomers. I think we end up doing a lot more ad hoc stuff with labels, >>>>>>> yes? Probably worth having a specific plan. Things I care about: >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> - priorities with documented meaning >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> - targeting issues to future releases >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> - basic visualizations (mainly total vs open issues >>>>>>> over time) >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> - tags / components >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> - editing/assigning by non-committers >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> - workflow supporting "needs triage" (default) -> open >>>>>>> -> resolved >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> I think a lot of the above is done via ad hoc labels >>>>>>> but I'm not sure if there are other fancy ways to do it. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> Anyhow we should switch even if there is a feature gap >>>>>>> for the sake of community. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> Kenn >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 3:06 PM David Huntsperger < >>>>>>> dhuntsper...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> Yes, please. I can help clean up the website issues as >>>>>>> part of a migration. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 1:46 PM Robert Burke < >>>>>>> rob...@frantil.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> Similar thing happened for Go migrating to use GH >>>>>>> issues for everything from Language Feature proposals to bugs. Much >>>>>>> easier >>>>>>> than the very gerrit driven process it was before, and User Discussions >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> far more discoverable by users: they usually already have a GH account, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> don't need to create a new separate one. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> GitHub does seem to permit user directed templates >>>>>>> for issues so we can simplify issue triage by users: Eg for Go there >>>>>>> are a >>>>>>> number of requests one can make: >>>>>>> https://github.com/golang/go/issues/new/choose >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021, 12:17 PM Andy Ye < >>>>>>> yea...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> Chiming in from the perspective of a new Beam >>>>>>> contributor. +1 on Github issues. I feel like it would be easier to >>>>>>> learn >>>>>>> about and contribute to existing issues/bugs if it were tracked in the >>>>>>> same >>>>>>> place as that of the source code, rather than bouncing back and forth >>>>>>> between the two different sites. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 1:18 PM Jarek Potiuk < >>>>>>> ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> Comment from a friendly outsider. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> TL; DR; Yes. Do migrate. Highly recommended. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> There were already similar discussions happening >>>>>>> recently (community >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> and infra mailing lists) and as a result I captured >>>>>>> Airflow's >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> experiences and recommendations in the BUILD wiki. >>>>>>> You might find some >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> hints and suggestions to follow as well as our >>>>>>> experiences at Airflow: >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=191332632 >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> J, >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 7:46 PM Brian Hulette < >>>>>>> bhule...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I wanted to start a discussion to gauge interest >>>>>>> on moving our issue tracking from the ASF Jira to GitHub Issues. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Pros: >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> + GH Issues is more discoverable and approachable >>>>>>> for new users and contributors. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> + For contributors at Google: we have tooling to >>>>>>> integrate GH Issues with internal issue tracking, which would help us be >>>>>>> more accountable (Full disclosure: this is the reason I started thinking >>>>>>> about this). >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Cons: >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - GH Issues can't be linked to jiras for other ASF >>>>>>> projects (I don't think we do this often in jira anyway). >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - We would likely need to do a one-time migration >>>>>>> of jiras to GH Issues, and update any processes or automation built on >>>>>>> jira >>>>>>> (e.g. release notes). >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Anything else? >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I've always thought that using ASF Jira was a hard >>>>>>> requirement for Apache projects, but that is not the case. Other Apache >>>>>>> projects are using GitHub Issues today, for example the Arrow DataFusion >>>>>>> sub-project uses GitHub issues now [1,2] and Airflow migrated from jira >>>>>>> [3] >>>>>>> to GitHub issues [4]. >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/w3dr1vlt9115r3x9m7bprmo4zpnog483 >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [3] >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/AIRFLOW/issues >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues >>>>>>> >>>> > >>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>> >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>
