The instructions for setting up JIRA to integrate with github is here: http://blogs.atlassian.com/2014/04/connecting-jira-6-2-github/
As Ted points out, in this case any comment on a commit that says DRILL-NNN would get found by JIRA and would automatically be added to the Jira ticket for the history to be reviewed. On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > The only Apache requirement is that the mailing list + JIRA makes sense and > is readable as a history of the project. Keeping the issues on github > won't fly. > > It is pretty easy to get github to hook into JIRA pretty well if the PR > messages have a reference to the JIRA. I don't know the details. > > The suggestion to require the person who merges to include a code-word in > the message is a very good one. > > > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I don't think we need anything formal. Do you want to propose a few > simple > > guidelines? > > > > E.g. Should we link to PRs on JIRA, do we really need a JIRA, the merger > is > > responsible for including the "close #123" syntax in the commit, etc. > > > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Jason Altekruse < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Seems to be enough consensus that this is beneficial. I took a look at > > the > > > bylaws and it doesn't say anything specific there about an official > > review > > > process. Is there a need to start a separate vote thread before making > a > > > change like this? > > > > > > I would be in favor of allowing both for a little bit, if it is a > > > significant improvement we can move to completely deprecate > reviewboard. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > What did we decide here? > > > > > > > > Are we going to move forward with trying out pull requests? If so, > do > > we > > > > want to start having everyone do it or suggest only one or two do it > to > > > > start? > > > > > > > > thoughts? > > > > Jacques > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I can't remember the rule. I think it was 3gb and 15 minutes. In > > > order > > > > > to get under 3 gb, I think we need to run single threaded. Last I > > > > checked, > > > > > running with 4 threads on dedicated hardware completes in ~12 > > minutes. > > > > > However, the Travis instances used to be really slow virtual > > machines. > > > > I'm > > > > > sure a solution can be found but I think we'd need some concerted > > > effort > > > > on > > > > > reducing the test footprint. > > > > > > > > > > We talked before (Daniel's suggestion) about treating more of the > > tests > > > > as > > > > > integration tests. This would help as much of the test time is > spent > > > > > starting and stopping Drillbits for each test class. If we only > did > > > this > > > > > once for all those tests, the footprint would be much smaller. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Ted Dunning < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Jacques Nadeau < > > [email protected]> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > We tried Travis before. The problem is that travis's nodes > aren't > > > > >> > substantial enough to complete our test suite within their > > timeout. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> Haven't the tests been substantially improved since then? > > > > >> > > > > >> Can the tests be segregated into pieces so Travis can still do > some > > > > useful > > > > >> work? > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- *Jim Scott* Director, Enterprise Strategy & Architecture +1 (347) 746-9281 <http://www.mapr.com/> [image: MapR Technologies] <http://www.mapr.com> Now Available - Free Hadoop On-Demand Training <http://www.mapr.com/training?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Signature&utm_campaign=Free%20available>
