Le 12/03/2020 à 11:46, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Le 12/03/2020 à 10:30, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
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.
8. Ability to create fork and work with peers on large or complicated subjects
To stop at this moment, I have created
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Adopting+Github+Workflow and
added Jacopo's answer as RM
Jacques
