Le 12/03/2020 à 09:12, Michael Brohl a écrit :
Hi Jacques,
I will just pick out one topic here, see inline:
Am 12.03.20 um 08:32 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
The most important question to answer is: what does Jira offers that GH does not?
To justify the need of making a change, to me the question is quite the opposite: what does GitHub offer which Jira does not in the domain of
contributing/ project management/ issue tracking?
What makes it desirable for the community as a whole to work on a switch to
GitHub?
What do we gain? What do we lose?
What processes are optimized or made easier for contributors (both technical
skilled and not so technical skilled)?
What problems do we have with the current setting and how are they solved with
a new solution?
Are there good examples or experience by other Apache projects who made the
switch?
I am not talking about personal preferences, speculations or just doing it because it's more up-to-date, but good, justified arguments which I have
not seen yet.
For a vote, we should collect all arguments with pro and cons side-by-side to
have everyone taking part of it well informed.
Thanks,
Michael Brohl
ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
Hi Michael,
Yes it's also good to see from the other side too, even if it blurs things a
bit for now...
Starting with not too much details to not be drown:
Pro:
1. More devs know GH than Jira and it has been created for them (when using
Git). They like it, we need them.
2. Simple things are easy to directly push with the PR commit button (w/ forced
rebase and merge). For large or complicate other paths are possible,
like attaching a patch.
3. If we use both solutions we complicate things (mental overload, cf. the
contributor wiki page). GH is an opportunity to simplify the processes.
Too much details[0] (bikeshedding) often does not help, KISS often helps.
4. Jacopo referred to an example of success (since 2016) in the GH wiki
page[1]. See how it's simple and easy to apply compared to our contributor
wiki page?
5. As Infra team supports the dual-host it's not a venture
6. GH has intrinsically tools to version and release (it's a dev tool not a
reporting tool). Please Jacopo confirm since you are the release manager[1.5]
7. As mentioned Gil, we must keep Jira for (much needed) history and slowly
close old, inaccurate or deprecated tickets.
Cons:
1. People knowing only Jira will need to adapt to GH, easy stuff since it's
supposed to be simpler to use in our acceptance.
2. Jira is maybe easier for not dev users to report. Though you can also report
in GH[2]. It then offers the same possibilities than Jira (which
adapted) but we miss the feature (=> ask Infra)
3. Has GH tools alike elaborated search in Jira, e.g. with filters?
4. Will we miss tools like Dashboard, fancy graphs, etc? (I don't think so)
Waiting completing pro and cons before starting a vote...
[0] Jira offers too much IMO, hence the contributor wiki page. Developers want
to code (fun), not to report to managers (boring)...
[1] https://rocketmq.apache.org/docs/pull-request/
[1.5]https://issues.apache.org/jira/plugins/servlet/project-config/OFBIZ/administer-versions?status=released-unreleased
[2]
https://help.github.com/en/github/managing-your-work-on-github/creating-an-issue
Jacques
