There is no issue page in Spark (https://github.com/apache/spark) and they rely solely on JIRA to track the working items. This is different from what we are doing now. MXNet associate PRs to working items by linking them to the Github issues, e.g, https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/10029 links to https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/9950. If we rely on JIRA in the future, we need to emphasize the difference between Github issues and JIRA items or disable Github/issues and forces users to use JIRA.
Personally, I think these two have similar functionalities and why don't we directly use Github issues? It's much easier for users as they do not need to create another account. Their contributions to MXNet (including creating issues) would also be directly displayed in the Github homepage, which encourages them to do more for the community. Best, Xingjian ________________________________ From: Nan Zhu <zhunanmcg...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 2:14 AM To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests just giving an example about Chris's opinion (how JIRA would help for more new users) I can see Spark 2.4 is highly possible to include the nested column pruning in parquet file from its JIRA ( https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502) [SPARK-4502] Spark SQL reads unneccesary nested fields ...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502> issues.apache.org When reading a field of a nested column from Parquet, SparkSQL reads and assemble all the fields of that nested column. This is unnecessary, as Parquet supports fine ... it's hard for me to have any source to get the similar expectation for MXNET Best, Nan On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> wrote: > Almost all Apache projects use JIRA. It's been proven to work in > open-source. > Having backlog/development process public hopefully will help adoption. > Right now, what new users? Adoption is very slow, so I think it's hard to > argue that the current way of doing things is effective. > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Sheng Zha <szha....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Cool. Feel free to propose a change to the PR template. > > > > How would JIRA be less daunting to new users? > > > > -sz > > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > My $0.02 about the PR template. > > > > > > I think it's a good idea. I think (just my opinion) is that the > adoption > > > is low because it started out too big and daunting. It may get more > > > adoption if we started a little smaller -- with maybe two checkboxes" > and > > > also didn't have a line at the top stating "Description", because that > > feel > > > skind of awkward and github inserts extended label info above it > > sometimes. > > > > > > Just an idea. > > > > > >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Sheng Zha <szha....@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> The PR template is designed for that and its poor adoption is causing > > the > > >> same issue of missing information in PRs. My concern of using JIRA is > > that > > >> more overhead would deter contribution and worsen the quality of > > >> description. > > >> > > >> -sz > > >> > > >>> On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Nan Zhu <zhunanmcg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> +1 on both suggestions > > >>> > > >>> a bit concern is on the quality of JIRA which is created > automatically > > >>> > > >>> I can see a lot of PRs are not described comprehensively, if we just > > post > > >>> what in description to JIRA, it's error-propagating > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> but the quality of JIRA is a big topic worth more discussions > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Marco de Abreu < > > >> marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > > >>>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Would it be possible to automatically create JIRA tickets when a > > GitHub > > >>>> issue is being created? We could then mirror all comments the same > way > > >> it's > > >>>> happening in https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MXNET/issues/ > > >> MXNET-42 > > >>>> but make sure that the bot works in both ways. A comment on GitHub > > >> would be > > >>>> copied to JIRA and a JIRA comment to GitHub. I think this would be > > good > > >> as > > >>>> a first step to start integration. > > >>>> > > >>>> -Marco > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:08 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > >>>> marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> I also see this as a big advantage in terms of transparency. I > > >> personally > > >>>>> will try to move away from any company internal issue trackers > > (except > > >>>> for > > >>>>> confidential cases) and instead work on Jira that is being managed > by > > >> the > > >>>>> community. This allows everybody to see what is being worked on and > > >> gives > > >>>>> them the possibility to chime with ideas or suggestions. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> In my opinion, this obsoletes TT and SIM to a big extent. It's up > to > > >> you > > >>>>> if you maintain multiple issue trackers or stick to one. If anybody > > >> has a > > >>>>> (non-confidential) issue that's related to my work on CI, I ask > them > > to > > >>>>> create a GitHub issue instead of a company internal ticket - I > invite > > >>>>> everybody to do the same. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> MXNet is an open source project and moving away from company > internal > > >>>>> trackers towards community driven ones is the next logical step in > my > > >>>>> opinion. At the moment, everybody is working on their own and it's > > hard > > >>>> to > > >>>>> see for external people (or even developer who are not part of the > > same > > >>>>> team) what we're actually working on. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -Marco > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Naveen Swamy <mnnav...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I am +1 for using JIRA. Managing bigger projects within MXNet on > > JIRA > > >>>>>> brings openness to the project. MXNet Users and the contributors > > also > > >>>> get > > >>>>>> a > > >>>>>> sense of where the project is heading. > > >>>>>> Bigger Tasks can be divided into sub-tasks which contributors can > > pick > > >>>> up > > >>>>>> small tasks based on their expertise on and contribute > > independently. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier < > > cjolivie...@gmail.com > > >>> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> The vote was discussed on private@ before the vote on dev@, and > > the > > >>>>>> vote > > >>>>>>> went on for a very long time. There was ZERO resistance. No > one > > >>>>>> "snuck" > > >>>>>>> it in or "slipped it by". > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> This, hopefully, phases out both SIM and tt, which are both are > > being > > >>>>>> used > > >>>>>>> in ways that aren't what they're even designed for, IMO. Trouble > > >>>>>> tickets > > >>>>>>> are being used as a backlog for my team, which is insane. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I've actually sent out a couple of mails on dev about contact me > if > > >>>> you > > >>>>>>> don't have access to JIRA. If you would like to participate in > the > > >>>>>>> direction of the project, please keep up with the dev email list. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I gave you contributor permissions on JIRA, btw. > > >>>>>>> . > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Aaron Markham < > > >>>>>> aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I'm not quite sure if I have enough background on reasons for or > > >>>>>> against > > >>>>>>>> this to vote in the next round, but my two cents: I didn't see > > much > > >>>>>>> debate > > >>>>>>>> on why we need yet another tool for issues that we have to > > manually > > >>>>>>>> maintain...the vote kind of slid in there without many > > stakeholders > > >>>>>>>> realizing what they were being signed up for. I was thinking, > > sure, > > >>>> if > > >>>>>>> YOU > > >>>>>>>> want to make jira tickets, go right ahead. I have two internal > > >>>>>> ticketing > > >>>>>>>> systems to deal with already that assign tasks on MXNet, plus > > >>>> GitHub. > > >>>>>>> Jira > > >>>>>>>> would be four. Happy to make it work, but I'll need fifth tool > to > > >>>>>>> aggregate > > >>>>>>>> communications and metrics between the other four tools! I'm > only > > >>>>>> sort of > > >>>>>>>> joking. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I saw Chris's response, and ok the public visibility part makes > > >>>> sense, > > >>>>>>> but > > >>>>>>>> does this phase out any other overhead? Does it integrate? Jira > > has > > >>>>>>>> integration options so maybe we can eliminate some overhead... > > Like > > >>>>>>>> something that hooks into the GitHub api and generates jira > > tickets > > >>>> on > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> fly... I want to believe there's a plan that makes this all > > easier. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> What value I don't see is how we lower barriers to contribution > > and > > >>>>>> make > > >>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>> more fluid for new users that could become contributors. What's > > the > > >>>>>> story > > >>>>>>>> and value proposition? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Also, I don't see any docs on the website or on github on how to > > >>>> sign > > >>>>>> up > > >>>>>>>> for jira, or how to contribute according to this new requirement > > >>>>>> anywhere > > >>>>>>>> on the site. Myself and new contributors wouldn't know what the > > >>>>>> expected > > >>>>>>>> flow looks like because it's not really accessible. I now see > the > > >>>>>>>> confluence wiki, but that's pretty much hidden from anyone > > browsing > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> site or github and looking to contribute. Why is this info on > > >>>>>> confluence > > >>>>>>> at > > >>>>>>>> all? Why not in the docs on github that are rendered to the > > website? > > >>>>>> Or > > >>>>>>>> conversely, why is some of the info on github and on the > website, > > if > > >>>>>> it > > >>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>> being maintained and current only on confluence? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> These are two separate issues really, but I think if you want > > >>>> buy-in, > > >>>>>>> this > > >>>>>>>> needs to be more transparent and obvious, and provide clear > > reasons > > >>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>> benefits to why you're asking for more overhead. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Aaron > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2018 21:14, "Eric Xie" <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> -1 > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> JIRA is ancient and arcane. This adds unnecessary overhead. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> On 2018/03/03 06:11:12, CodingCat <coding...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> This vote passes with 6 +1 votes (6 bindings) and no 0 or -1 > > >>>>>> votes. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Binding +1: > > >>>>>>>>>> Chris Olivier > > >>>>>>>>>> Indhu Bharathi > > >>>>>>>>>> Suneel Marthi > > >>>>>>>>>> Yuan Tang > > >>>>>>>>>> Marco de Abreu > > >>>>>>>>>> Sebastian Schelter > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Vote thread: > > >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/list.html?d...@mxnet.apache.org:lte= > > >>>>>>>>> 1M:tracking%20code%20changes%20with%20JIRA%20by%20associatin > > >>>>>>>>> g%20pull%20requests > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> I will continue with pushing the content to wiki and take it > > >>>> into > > >>>>>>>>> practice > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >
