Just a short response: We have a significant number of asf projects which migrated to GH issues recently, ie. there is automatic tooling in place to conduct such migration (for example: Shiro did it recently).
It often involves to make Jira read-only and link from the relevant GH issues to the Jira issue. Gruß Richard Am Mittwoch, dem 16.08.2023 um 10:03 +0200 schrieb Alexandre Vermeerbergen: > Hello Richard, > > On the one hand, I have nothing against the use of GitHub issues > instead of JIRA issues. I agree that JIRA is kind of overkill for the > simple need of tracking issues for Storm project. > > On the other hand, the migration of existing JIRA issues to GitHub > issues is likely to take time. > Given that recently Storm project was threatened to go attic because > of its decreasing activity, I'm wondering if such migration is a fair > use of Storm's contributors. > > Maybe an estimation of work to be done would help: > - How many opened JIRA issues are there? > - Is there a way to (at least partially) automate JIRA to GitHub > issues migration? > I guess that manually opening a GitHub issue and copying both the > title, initial content description, copy URL to initial JIRA, add > attached materiel (if any) and copying related discussions will be an > hassle... > > Thanks, > Alexandre > > Le mer. 16 août 2023 à 09:24, Richard Zowalla <r...@apache.org> a > écrit : > > > > Hi all, > > > > I'd like to take a moment to discuss something that I believe will > > significantly enhance our project's collaboration and attract new > > contributors: migrating from Jira to GitHub Issues and GitHub > > Discussions. > > > > We aren't using Jira very well in most cases, and the requirement > > for a > > Jira ticket for a code change leads to people just creating new > > Jira > > tickets, rather than searching to see if there already exists a > > ticket > > for that feature. Additionally most of the committers follow a > > similar > > path of "work on feature, open Jira ticket just before creating > > PR". > > > > One downside is we might get people opening issues for "help, how > > do I > > do this" -- I think we can address that by having an issue template > > saying something like "DO NOT OPEN AN ISSUE ASKING FOR HELP - ask > > on > > users@ or in GitHub Discussions. Another downside would be the > > vendor > > lock related to GitHub. > > > > In addition, the ASF JIRA instance no longer allows users to self- > > sign- > > up (though it DOES allow us to invite others). This is largely due > > to > > spam. > > > > Most developers have a GitHub account (and that is where most folks > > interact with Storm's code base), and this would meet folks where > > they > > are, as opposed to making them go somewhere else to dig through > > issues > > or to start working on them. Enabling GitHub discussions would also > > enable users to work where they are and we can still sent > > everything to > > the related mailing lists to ensure archivability. > > > > > > Tentative suggestion: > > * Go through existing Storm JIRA issues and close any issues that > > are > > no > > longer relevant. > > * Migrate open issues to GitHub Issues in apache/storm (linking > > back to > > the > > JIRA issue) > > * All new issues will only be created in GitHub Issues > > * When an existing JIRA issue is fixed, it will be updated in both > > locations > > > > Potential process changes: > > * Release notes/change logs are currently generated through JIRA, > > which > > we would need to change in order to make it happen. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Gruß > > Richard
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
