> > The system of record needs to remain JIRA. > > Why? Because (ASF Member hat on) if GH goes away, the project would be crippled, severely so. Losing the institutional memory of what is going on is a serious problem.
Because otherwise you need to migrate a couple thousand bugs out of JIRA, including all history, into GH, which is problematic and will certainly result in a loss of fidelity. Because even the GH employees I'm friends with tell me that Issues is nowhere near feature rich enough even for their own work, and especially not when having to interface with other organizations (such as corporate sponsors/participants). I admit this is opinion and hearsay but it bears repeating since right now the argument seems to be "I like GH issues, let's use it instead," > > GH Issues is no replacement for JIRA; the fidelity of the system is > > vastly different. > > We barely use any JIRA features that GH issues doesn’t do :) I consider this a failing on our part. My illness has stood in the way of me being more involved in cleaning it up, but with proper tending it could be every bit as enjoyable as we'd all like it to be IMO. > Every JIRA page I try to load takes at least 1 minute (I’m not > exaggerating). Do not conflate system performance with reason for existence and utility. Would you feel differently if performance was up to par? We should definitely take up this issue with Infra *separately* as the inability for us to do our work within the system clearly is having a material impact. > I could see a mirror system where GH issues create JIRA issues and > comments > are synced both ways, but I’d be fine without that and only have > GitHub > notifications go into notifications@c.a.o so we have all content in > ASF-land. Tracking comments on issues on a mailing list is no substitute for an ASF-hosted issue tracker. In fact, since you are discussing changing the system of record to GH Issues entirely, I am updating my feelings to -1, full stop. -Joan
