I agree with we shouldn't make our issue system diverge and we have to
keep only one primary one.
It's very confusing to have two active issue systems for me (and also
for many of the devs I think), it will make the situation worse than
it is now.
Meanwhile, I didn't think we should make a hard, atomic switch - I
thought we can leave some space for using both GitHub and Jira, the
former is the primary and officially recommended, and the latter is
deprecated but still an option if there is a valid reason to choose
it.

There is no need to rush to reach a conclusion. I would like to keep
the conversation open until we can make a decision.

Tomoko

2022年6月16日(木) 0:56 Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com>:

>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 10:46 AM Tomoko Uchida <tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you everyone for your suggestions.
>> I don't have a strong opinion on how to handle existing issues, I just
>> want to proceed with the migration smoothly. I'd open this discussion
>> until we find a better (not perfect) option or reach some level of
>> agreement.
>
>
> I see you already have a start at the migration plan, yay!  (The comment on 
> LUCENE-10557)
>
> Could we maybe pull that out into a wiki page so we can more easily 
> collaborate on the steps?
>
>>
>> > make the Jira project read only.
>>
>> I'm sorry but I don't think we can make Jira read only... I think we
>> should support the backup contribution paths outside GitHub, and
>> personally, I don't want to back to a mail-based way.
>> We've seen there are people who don't use GitHub for whatever reason
>> and I think we can't ignore the risk of GitHub account banning - it
>> can happen accidentally to anyone (I don't know the surveillance
>> system in GitHub at all but it might be automated? Systems can make
>> mistakes and recovering an account may take some time).
>
>
> Hmm, I think it's quite risky/dangerous to leave both writable?  It'd be 
> forking our issue tracker.  We'll have situations where some of us update the 
> Jira issue, others update the GitHub issue, we lose context/comments, we 
> duplicate work (thinking nobody is working on the GitHub issue yet someone 
> was actually working on the Jira one).  It would add risk/friction/taxation 
> to development going forward ... people would need to know to check two 
> places (GitHub and Jira) for updates, new issues, patches, linked PRs, etc.
>
> To me the migration would ideally be an atomic switch -- only Jira is 
> writeable up until some point, then it goes read only, we kick off the 
> (hopefully already well tested/debugged migration tool, probably just forking 
> this nice tool that the Lucene.net devs created), then GitHub issues is 
> writable.
>
> This nicely matches how SVN -> Git migration went.
>
> Yes, some people are not fully comfortable with GitHub, yet, but we expect 
> that to be the minority, we expect account blocking to be rare and easy to 
> resolve, etc. (since our VOTE to migrate has passed).
>
> I really feel we should make a hard switch for the best long-term health of 
> the dev community.
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to