I am 100% for preventing creation of new issues in Jira, new issues should only be created in one system at any one time. I feel that existing issues should be completed in their original system for continuity, and anticipate that in any case Jira will mean readable in perpetuity. The copying of old issues to github as a convenience for users so they aren't forced to look at 2 places also sounds good. Raising the standard for what we consider a stale issue and closing out things in Jira faster to get to a one system situation sooner also seems good.
Things I think we should strive to avoid: 1) An issue in Jira that is unresolved and duplicated (possibly resolved) in github... possibly leading to someone wasting time repeating a solution or giving up thinking there isn't a solution etc. 2) Any issues for which the discussion is split across systems and thus it would be easy to miss part of the discussion and/or not have the issue come up in searches that are relevant to that issue. Also, a common pattern for me is to throw an issue ticket number that I have noted somewhere (i.e LUCENE-12345) into google and browse to the ticket if it comes up directly or to a mail archive result which has a link to the Jira. This is faster than searching in jira itself because I can always get to google in a single keystroke (new tab). Sadly this is unlikely to work with github which does not put a project moniker on the issue id. Not sure how many others do this but if it's common I wonder if we can auto-insert something of the sort into github tickets so that mail archives from the tickets are similarly searchable? Like LUCENE-G12345 for github ticket #12345? The two key things that make this useful are the searchability of the ID in google and the fact that ticket mails often have a link to the ticket which the archive sites will render as a hyperlink. -Gus On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 11:12 AM David Smiley <dsmi...@apache.org> wrote: > I suppose someone bent on not using GitHub could also email the patch to > the dev list, starting a thread around it. > > ~ David Smiley > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 9:14 AM Michael McCandless < > luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > >> Hi Team, >> >> Thanks to Tomoko's amazing hard work ( >> https://github.com/apache/lucene-jira-archive), we are getting close to >> having strong tooling and a solid plan to migrate all past Jira issues to >> GItHub issues! >> >> But one contentious point is whether to leave Jira read-only or >> read-write after the migration. So let's DISCUSS and maybe VOTE to reach >> concensus? >> >> My opinion: I think it'd be crazy to leave Jira read/write. We would >> effectively have two issue trackers. New users who find Jira through >> Google, or through links we have in old blog posts, etc., might >> accidentally open new Jira issues or comment on old ones and we may not >> even notice. I think that would harm our community. >> >> I would prefer that we make a nearly atomic switch -- up until time X we >> use Jira, then it goes read-only and at time X + t (t being how long the >> migration takes, likely a day or two?), GitHub issues opens for business. >> This way we clarly have only one issue tracker at (nearly) all times. This >> would make a clean migration, and reduce risk of trapping users. >> >> Other opinions? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mike >> -- >> Mike McCandless >> >> http://blog.mikemccandless.com >> > -- http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) http://www.the111shift.com (play)
