Thanks for taking this up Josh. I'm for whatever we think will result in a more accurate view of progress. Edit access has been a friction point. I'd like to hear from others as well too but generally I'm +1 to giving it a shot.
Jordan On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 1:45 PM Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > From my 4.0 status progress email earlier today, we still have quite a few > testing initiatives that are lacking Shepherds or tracking tickets in JIRA: > [Areas needing Shepherds] - 6 > ... > > [Areas needing tracking tickets] - 11 > ... > > I went ahead and tried out the format of creating an epic in JIRA as a > central location to collect this information in one place. The link for a > WIP look at this is here: Link: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15536. I don't want to get > too far into prototyping this as if we don't collectively want to go this > route, I don't want to have 11 JIRAs created plus an epic we'd then delete > and spam the list. > > My .02: I think it'd improve our ability to collaborate and lower friction > to testing if we could do so on JIRA instead of the cwiki. *I suspect *the > edit access restrictions there plus general UX friction (difficult to have > collab discussion, comment chains, links to things, etc) make the confluent > wiki a worse tool for this job than JIRA. Plus if we do it in JIRA we can > track the outstanding scope in the single board and it's far easier to > visualize everything in one place so we can all know where attention and > resources need to be directed to best move the needle on things. > > But that's just my opinion. What does everyone else think? Like the JIRA > route? Hate it? No opinion? > > If we do decide we want to go the epic / JIRA route, I'd be happy to > migrate the rest of the information in there for things that haven't been > completed yet on the wiki (ticket creation, assignee/reviewer chains, links > to epic). > > So what does everyone think? >