Agree with everyone here. Also consider that if we duplicate there will be two copies of the same issue, and they will inevitably diverge...
On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 9:28 AM Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com> wrote: > > +1 for a manual approach > > Over time the volume will gravitate to mostly GitHub issues. And JIRA will > always remain as an archive, so nothing is lost. Devs can always peek into > the list of open JIRAs any time and choose to start a PR for one. A slight > disadvantage is of course that in the first year or two you need to look in > both systems to get a full overview of all open issues. But auto migrating > hundreds of abandoned JIRA issues to GitHub is no better imo. > > Jan > > 15. jun. 2022 kl. 13:03 skrev Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@gmail.com>: > > >> Maybe a 3rd option could be to only use GitHub for new issues by adding some >> text to the Jira create issue dialog that says something like "JIRA is >> deprecated, please use GitHub for new issues" to encourage users to create >> new issues on GitHub instead of JIRA. > > > I was thinking this too, actually. It'd allow for a more graceful transition > period from one system to another. It'd also help keep cross-links (from > comments, etc.) in the old issues reference proper targets. And I don't see > many disadvantages - I imagine that folks who wish to revisit old(er) open > Jira issues and prefer GH can close the jira ticket as a duplicate and open a > new corresponding GH issue. Wouldn't this be easier (for you as well)? The > key change would be procedural -- allow pull requests and github issues as > first-class "change" tickets. > > D. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
