Ohh and I could use some help to know what branch I should use to send the PRs for incubator-kie-optaplanner-quickstarts and incubator-kie-kogito-docs repos.
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 1:32 PM Alex Porcelli <[email protected]> wrote: > > Following up on this thread regarding enabling GitHub Issues on all > repositories. I actually reached out to Apache Infra [1] asking for > that and, as somewhat expected, they told us to use the .asf.yaml > file. > > So I ended up creating a quick script and submit a PR for all repos > with the content necessary to enable GitHub Issues (note even if the > repo has the issues already enabled, it's not a bad idea to have the > .asf.yaml file in place): > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-optaplanner/pull/3014 > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-drools/pull/5580 > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-docs/pull/4532 > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-benchmarks/pull/274 > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes/pull/3279 > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-examples/pull/1822 > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-images/pull/1710 > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-operator/pull/1533 > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-website/pull/73 > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-apps/pull/1912 > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-pipelines/pull/1120 > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-benchmarks/pull/18 > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-serverless-operator/pull/297 > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/pull/683 > > [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-25142 > > Alex > > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 8:09 AM Alex Porcelli <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Marek, > > > > I’d expect that a Red Hatter would reach out to Red Hat JIRA admins asking > > for such. > > > > Regards, > > Alex > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:52 AM Marek Novotny <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Dne 11/3/23 v 19:30 Alex Porcelli napsal(a): > >> > Just a quick follow-up on this topic regarding the non-apache JIRA > >> > projects for the transferred projects. > >> > > >> > We need to make sure that no one can add new issues to these old > >> > JIRAs. However, we should keep all the old information there because > >> > it's useful. > >> > >> How do you think that can be ensured ? > >> > >> > >> > > >> > People can look at the old stuff to understand the history or to > >> > connect it to new tasks. From now on, any new tasks should be written > >> > up in GitHub Issues, not JIRA. > >> > > >> > Even though we will be using GitHub Issues for new work, if there is > >> > already an issue in the old JIRA that explains a problem well, we > >> > don't need to write it all over again in GitHub. Just putting a link > >> > to the old JIRA issue in the new GitHub Issue is good enough. > >> > > >> > If we need to talk about an issue in detail, we will decide how to do > >> > that on a case-by-case basis. But mostly, we want to use GitHub Issues > >> > to talk things over. > >> > > >> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 1:58 PM Alex Porcelli <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> +1 from me :) > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 1:55 PM ricardo zanini fernandes > >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> Oh that makes perfect sense. > >> >>> > >> >>> I agree that we can use the global one for fixing CVEs across all the > >> >>> repos, for example. Also, all the other use cases you mentioned. > >> >>> > >> >>> That's clear now, many thanks for clarifying. > >> >>> > >> >>> I'd like to hear from others. Do we have a +1 to use repo level issues? > >> >>> > >> >>> cheers! > >> >>> > >> >>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 2:50 PM Alex Porcelli <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> Sorry my lack of clarity on my previous email. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> What I wanted to say is that we can use both, and move issues around > >> >>>> where we see better fit. I just don't think we can avoid a > >> >>>> commons/global one. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 1:43 PM ricardo zanini fernandes > >> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>>> Hey Alex! > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Thanks for the replies! > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> I believe the use cases you just mentioned might have issues opened > >> >>>>> in > >> >>>> the > >> >>>>> other repositories and have GH to link them. Wouldn't that make > >> >>>>> sense? > >> >>>>> Plus, I believe these use cases are not the rule, but the exception. > >> >>>>> Usually, what we have is a single issue in the scope of a single > >> >>>>> repo. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>> So, based on the list above, the use of a centralized repo makes > >> >>>>> sense. But you know what? Moving issues around is quite easy within > >> >>>>> the same organization, so based on my input above I'd argue we can't > >> >>>>> live without a centralized repo... but you can certainly move issues > >> >>>>> to individual repos if they make more sense there.. as part of the > >> >>>>> developer workflow. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Not sure if I understood your statement here 😅 > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> So can we or not use the repo level approach? For example, see these > >> >>>>> I > >> >>>>> created yesterday: [1,2]. I had to add the "[SonataFlow Operator]" > >> >>>>> to the > >> >>>>> title to give context. Maybe adding more labels? :( > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Anyhow, I think we should take a path. If the usage is this central > >> >>>>> repo > >> >>>>> for issues, so be it. But I think, based on the feedback I got here, > >> >>>>> that > >> >>>>> we should focus on having the issues at the repo level. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> +1 for the comms strategy after having a release. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/661 > >> >>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/660 > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 2:22 PM Alex Porcelli <[email protected]> > >> >>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 9:17 AM ricardo zanini fernandes > >> >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> Hey folks! > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Last community meeting we had this topic pending regarding the > >> >>>>>>> communication of opening issues. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> I understand that we must use kie-issues now for opening issues and > >> >>>> not > >> >>>>>> an > >> >>>>>>> internal JIRA anymore. Great! I like GH issues more. Although, I > >> >>>> have a > >> >>>>>> few > >> >>>>>>> Qs and observations: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> 1) Why use a central repository for opening issues and not opening > >> >>>> issues > >> >>>>>>> in the respective repository? This is the convention, and each repo > >> >>>> might > >> >>>>>>> have different requirements. Like adding different labels or bots. > >> >>>>>> Having a > >> >>>>>>> central repo for issues seems an anti-pattern. > >> >>>>>> I agree in principle, however I think this is more complex than > >> >>>>>> that. > >> >>>>>> The default use of centralized issue repository helps in the > >> >>>>>> following > >> >>>>>> scenarios: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> - Issues that span multiple repositories (ie. a library upgrade) > >> >>>>>> - Some issues may be surfaced on one component but the real issue is > >> >>>>>> actually happening in another component. (ie. DMN Runner in KIE > >> >>>>>> Sandbox fails with certain input, JIT DMN Runner is failing, but the > >> >>>>>> bug is on DMN core engine) > >> >>>>>> - General users won't necessary know what repository stores the code > >> >>>>>> of the component that they are using > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> So, based on the list above, the use of a centralized repo makes > >> >>>>>> sense. But you know what? Moving issues around is quite easy within > >> >>>>>> the same organization, so based on my input above I'd argue we can't > >> >>>>>> live without a centralized repo... but you can certainly move issues > >> >>>>>> to individual repos if they make more sense there.. as part of the > >> >>>>>> developer workflow. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> And just keep in mind, for all the purposes in the context of > >> >>>>>> Apache, > >> >>>>>> the only real project is KIE, others are only submodules. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> 2) Can't we have templates when opening issues? How do we > >> >>>> communicate to > >> >>>>>>> the community how to open issues? If we go with this central issues > >> >>>> repo, > >> >>>>>>> then we need to communicate in each repo that issues can't be > >> >>>>>>> opened > >> >>>>>> there. > >> >>>>>>> Or at least disable the issues tab via .asf.yaml file. This passes > >> >>>>>>> a > >> >>>>>> weird > >> >>>>>>> message to the community, IMO. The first impression is that we > >> >>>>>>> might > >> >>>> not > >> >>>>>>> accept issues. A newcomer will have to look for a contrib/readme > >> >>>> file to > >> >>>>>>> find where to open. > >> >>>>>> +1 for templates. And I don't think we need to block the github > >> >>>>>> issues > >> >>>>>> in repos, we can change this right now (my +1 for that). > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> For general communication, I think we all agreed to focus first on > >> >>>>>> the > >> >>>>>> codebase move + a CI baseline... once we are able to cut our first > >> >>>>>> release, I suspect our focus will turn to our communications. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> 3) Do we have to migrate internal opening JIRAs to GH Issues? If > >> >>>>>>> so, > >> >>>> can > >> >>>>>> we > >> >>>>>>> do it as we start working on them instead of a batch migration? > >> >>>>>> The agreement was to not migrate existing... but for anything to be > >> >>>>>> worked... it's expected the individual will copy-n-paste from JIRA > >> >>>>>> to > >> >>>>>> GHI to track the work. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Thank u! > >> >>>>>>> -- > >> >>>>>>> Zanini > >> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > >> -- > >> Marek Novotny > >> -- > >> > >> RedHat JBoss Middleware > >> > >> Red Hat Czech s.r.o. > >> Purkynova 111 > >> 612 45 Brno > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
