+1 to C. It's low-effort / simple. And it lowers the bar for contributors: "meet new contributors where they are at" (not having a JIRA account).
I further recommend that we only lock new issue creation in JIRA, not comments or watching. The down-side to B or C is that Solr's issue legacy becomes split: some in JIRA, some in GitHub. But neither system goes away, and both remain searchable. Perhaps the "issues" mail list archive could become the single search source for issues originating from both platforms? Over time, the JIRA side will be less relevant, and eventually a GitHub-only search may suffice for some purposes. On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 9:57 AM Jan Høydahl <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > This thread has been running since October 2022 (bumped in 2023 and 2024 — > see below). A new development makes this urgent: Apache INFRA is migrating > ASF JIRA to Atlassian Cloud, expected to complete around end of June. > > Key implications: > > JIRA URL redirects to the-asf.atlassian.net > Committers keep their ASF SSO login; external users will need a new > Atlassian account + ToS acceptance > Lucene's migration script targets the on-prem JIRA APIs — once the cloud > migration is done, that script likely won't work. We need to decide and act > before end of June. > The four options i proposed in my January 2024 mail (below) remains: > > A) Migrate all ~18,000 issues to GitHub, like Lucene did > B) Migrate only open/active issues; leave closed ones as a read-only JIRA > archive > C) Fresh start on GitHub; drive remaining open JIRAs to closure within ~3 > months, no migration needed > D) Stay on JIRA, now on Atlassian Cloud > I lean toward B or C. Option C is cleanest but requires aggressive triage > to avoid prolonged dual issue tracker situation. Option B is feasible if we > first reduce the 4,104 open issues to a manageable number (see separate > "JIRA housekeeping" thread). > > I think this is ripe for a VOTE, but not sure how to phrase a VOTE thread > since there are strong opinions and folks arguing for all four options. So > let this be an informal "Multiple-choice" poll to see if sentiment has > changed last few years. > > If I had to choose one right now I'd say C) > > Jan > > > > Fra: Jan Høydahl <[email protected]> > > Emne: Sv: [jira] [Created] (SOLR-16455) Migrate Jira to Github Issues > and Github Projects, and migrate mailing lists to Github Discussions > > Dato: 9. januar 2024 kl. 00:57:23 CET > > Til: [email protected] > > > Bringing attention to this thread again. > > > > Now that Lucene has some experience after the migration and with using > Issues, labels etc, I'd like to discuss whether we'd want to copy the > Lucene approach or do something different. > > > > I'm not frequenting the Lucene issue tracker much, and am not either > aware of a formal evaluation of their issue migration. So appreciate > feedback from committers who have more exposure from Lucene. > > > > In my mind, we, Solr, have four options > > A) Migrate everything, like Lucene did > > B) Migrate only OPEN JIRA issues, refer to JIRA for ancient history > > C) Fresh-start empty GH issues, use JIRA as archive before yyyy-mm-dd > > D) Continue with g'old JIRA > > > > I was getting used to the thought of copying Lucene's approach, but > re-thinking now, I have once again shifted my preference towards C), a > fresh start. I'll summarize my reasons below with some numbers and > experience from Lucene's GH issues. Forgive my last rant on this subject :) > > > > <rant> > > I'm a fan of NOT migrating the entire JIRA history to GH. Instead let > the R/O SOLR-JIRA be the system of record for historic issues forever. I.e. > start a fresh, empty GH issue tracker for all NEW issues. The main con, two > systems of record, can imo be mitigated with SearchEngineTechnoloty™. > Nothing is lost and the duplication of 16k issues in two systems is more > confusing imo. We could time-box the overlap period where both systems are > writable to, say 3 months, and at the end of that period, CLOSE all > still-open JIRA issues with a label and a suitable message. > > > > My arguments for this approach: 1) Solr has 16993 JIRA issues! 2) There > are 4030 OPEN issues, of which 3681 has not been touched for a year! Why > would we want 3681 OPEN & stale GitHub issues? Instead I'd like to use > StaleBot to tag stale issues+PRs and auto close+tag if still stale for N > days. This is a much-used, proven approach. 3) The Lucene migration caused > a whopping 642 issue/PR labels < > https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/labels>, impossible to browse > manually. Most labels are trying to record legacy JIRA fields. I checked > e.g. the "affects-version" < > https://github.com/apache/lucene/labels?q=affects-version:9>, label in > Lucene. New labels have not been maintained for recent releases (8.11.2, > 9.4..9), and those labels are ~NEVER even used when people create new GH > issues, so why even bother? Same for Priority etc. > > </rant> > > > > Let the discussion continue... > > > > Jan > >
