Not sure if was mentioned. Spring moved all their legacy Jira for all their projects entirely to GitHub Issues. Believe it was done with everything.
https://spring.io/blog/2019/01/15/spring-framework-s-migration-from-jira-to-github-issues Now concerns of MS are unfounded thus far. MS is biggest user of github which is why they bought it. Not sure that is still the case but after some 14 years, issues have not cost anything and moving them back out is about as easy of a process. Plus issues and pull requests are effectively the same thing (at least numbering wise). Comparing to items I've seen mentioned here like google code shutting I don’t think are very fair comparisons. I would lean to look at spring and see their motivation. Rest is my 2 cents don't feel inclined to read my rambling. From a plugin owner where all I use issues only, working at a job where Jira has become a time tracking tool, and the fact its so hard to work with any github team that uses jira.... Sure I figured it out with maven but it’s a serious pain....and leads to...how I feel. And I’m sure true for most others are the same. I prefer to not even contribute or be active as a result on any repos that are using jira. Let's be honest here. Atlassian is just doing nothing with their products. Jira looks the same today it did 14 years ago. Bitbucket looks the same as Stash before it with some minor color changes. They are losing market share as a result as they cannot even handle volume. Jira is a bloated mess. If team is trying to do agile, that’s built into github too. Its so much easier to be in one single place. I've heard these arguments that github might go away for years now or MS owning it now might do like Oracle. They did something right here. MS consideration is a lot like Oracle, super heavy handed in what they do but the foundation was set and unlike MS trying to end Slack with ugly Teams, they choose not to do the same with GH. Outside of some assumed "they mess it all up and ruin our lives", I think the benefits far outweight all concerns. I'd be -1 on only having issues in one place but maybe as a jumping off point to find all the repos. Blame feature doesn't really help, no one sees those. Issues needs turned on for all repos. In fact, if you want to continue jira, fine, but open issues up. If someone as a small concern, only making them raise on mailing lists or jira is a nightmare. This is by far biggest reason I hate bitbucket - no issues, use jira. Too many times and I'm sure I’m not alone, its easier to just ignore the issues outright and try to find alternatives due to complexity. This was true of the old hosting sites too, old days were very hard to be casual contributor. The easier it is, the more likely more contributors are engaged. -----Original Message----- From: Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2023 2:53 PM To: dev@maven.apache.org Subject: Re: GH issues and GH discussions Am 2023-05-27 um 12:10 schrieb Tamás Cservenák: > Howdy, > > I do agree with Lukasz here...but > > In general, my intention with bringing up this on Slack was motivated > by following reasons: > - we do have ML (signup needed), > - we do have JIRA (ask + approval + signup needed), > > But all this is a high barrier for "one off" users, many of our users > want to ASK us about something, so going through hoops and loops above > (and coming back 2 yr after with "please unsub me...") only to post a > question is just a very bad experience. > > Moreover, we are very fragmented repository-wide, and I bet that a > novice user will simply be lost: > - WHERE (as in which Maven-* GH repo) to ask > - WHERE (as in which Maven-* GH repo) to report issue > - etc > > This is why I recommended "single entry point", a kind of dispatcher > (discussion) repo/GH project, where one off users can hop on, ASK > things and disappear if they like, receive answers where to go, and so > on. And if they feel like it, they could join ML or register to JIRA, > something TODAY EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO REACH OUT TO US must do. Hence, most > "one off askers" > would not go so far even. > > For me, most reasonable would be a new "discussion only" project, for > example "apache/maven-project" on GH, that would contain no source, no > issues, only discussions enabled and would serve as a "low barrier lobby" > for newcomers. > > Opening discussions in _existing repository_ is unwise IMHO, as "general" > discussions/questions do not belong to apache/maven, nor > apache/maven-clean-plugin, nor any other existing repo. I truly do like your idea and also agree with Lukasz -- never give up to control to a single party, especially one like MS. Upshot: One entry point with an empty repo. B KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKCB [ X ܚX KK[XZ[ ] ][ X ܚX PX] [ \X K ܙ B ܈Y][ۘ[ [X[ K[XZ[ ] Z[ X] [ \X K ܙ B
