Re: Testing out JIRA as replacement for cwiki tracking of 4.0 quality testing

[Joshua McKenzie]

I went ahead and imported the rest of the issues from cwiki and setup
assignee = shephard, reviewers == contributors.

Epic in JIRA 

Query in JIRA of the tickets created:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20and%20%22Epic%20Link%22%20%3D%20CASSANDRA-15536

Note: this'll bloat our #'s next week on status update, but that's probably
for the best as this was "invisible scope" of a sort.

Are there any proponents of the cwiki approach or is there any feedback /
thoughts on the JIRA approach?

Thanks.

~Josh

On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 3:39 PM Joshua McKenzie  wrote:

> From the people that have modified this page in the past, what are your
> thoughts? Good for me to pull the rest into JIRA and we redirect from the
> wiki?
> +joey lynch
> +scott andreas
> +sumanth pasupuleti
> +marcus eriksson
> +romain hardouin
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:57 AM Joshua McKenzie 
> wrote:
>
>> what we really need is
>>> some dedicated PM time going forward. Is that something you think you can
>>> help resource from your side?
>>
>> Not a ton, but I think enough yes.
>>
>> (Also, thanks for all the efforts exploring this either way!!)
>>
>> Happy to help.
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 2:46 PM Nate McCall  wrote:
>>
>>> > 
>>> > My .02: I think it'd improve our ability to collaborate and lower
>>> friction
>>> > to testing if we could do so on JIRA instead of the cwiki. *I suspect
>>> *the
>>> > edit access restrictions there plus general UX friction (difficult to
>>> have
>>> > collab discussion, comment chains, links to things, etc) make the
>>> confluent
>>> > wiki a worse tool for this job than JIRA. Plus if we do it in JIRA we
>>> can
>>> > track the outstanding scope in the single board and it's far easier to
>>> > visualize everything in one place so we can all know where attention
>>> and
>>> > resources need to be directed to best move the needle on things.
>>> >
>>> > But that's just my opinion. What does everyone else think? Like the
>>> JIRA
>>> > route? Hate it? No opinion?
>>> >
>>> > If we do decide we want to go the epic / JIRA route, I'd be happy to
>>> > migrate the rest of the information in there for things that haven't
>>> been
>>> > completed yet on the wiki (ticket creation, assignee/reviewer chains,
>>> links
>>> > to epic).
>>> >
>>> > So what does everyone think?
>>> >
>>>
>>> I think this is a good idea. Having the resources available to keep the
>>> various bits twiddled correctly on existing and new issues has always
>>> been
>>> the hard part for us. So regardless of the path, what we really need is
>>> some dedicated PM time going forward. Is that something you think you can
>>> help resource from your side?
>>>
>>> (Also, thanks for all the efforts exploring this either way!!)
>>>
>>

Re: Testing out JIRA as replacement for cwiki tracking of 4.0 quality testing

[Joshua McKenzie]

>From the people that have modified this page in the past, what are your
thoughts? Good for me to pull the rest into JIRA and we redirect from the
wiki?
+joey lynch
+scott andreas
+sumanth pasupuleti
+marcus eriksson
+romain hardouin


On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:57 AM Joshua McKenzie  wrote:

> what we really need is
>> some dedicated PM time going forward. Is that something you think you can
>> help resource from your side?
>
> Not a ton, but I think enough yes.
>
> (Also, thanks for all the efforts exploring this either way!!)
>
> Happy to help.
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 2:46 PM Nate McCall  wrote:
>
>> > 
>> > My .02: I think it'd improve our ability to collaborate and lower
>> friction
>> > to testing if we could do so on JIRA instead of the cwiki. *I suspect
>> *the
>> > edit access restrictions there plus general UX friction (difficult to
>> have
>> > collab discussion, comment chains, links to things, etc) make the
>> confluent
>> > wiki a worse tool for this job than JIRA. Plus if we do it in JIRA we
>> can
>> > track the outstanding scope in the single board and it's far easier to
>> > visualize everything in one place so we can all know where attention and
>> > resources need to be directed to best move the needle on things.
>> >
>> > But that's just my opinion. What does everyone else think? Like the JIRA
>> > route? Hate it? No opinion?
>> >
>> > If we do decide we want to go the epic / JIRA route, I'd be happy to
>> > migrate the rest of the information in there for things that haven't
>> been
>> > completed yet on the wiki (ticket creation, assignee/reviewer chains,
>> links
>> > to epic).
>> >
>> > So what does everyone think?
>> >
>>
>> I think this is a good idea. Having the resources available to keep the
>> various bits twiddled correctly on existing and new issues has always been
>> the hard part for us. So regardless of the path, what we really need is
>> some dedicated PM time going forward. Is that something you think you can
>> help resource from your side?
>>
>> (Also, thanks for all the efforts exploring this either way!!)
>>
>

Re: Testing out JIRA as replacement for cwiki tracking of 4.0 quality testing

[Joshua McKenzie]

>
> what we really need is
> some dedicated PM time going forward. Is that something you think you can
> help resource from your side?

Not a ton, but I think enough yes.

(Also, thanks for all the efforts exploring this either way!!)

Happy to help.

On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 2:46 PM Nate McCall  wrote:

> > 
> > My .02: I think it'd improve our ability to collaborate and lower
> friction
> > to testing if we could do so on JIRA instead of the cwiki. *I suspect
> *the
> > edit access restrictions there plus general UX friction (difficult to
> have
> > collab discussion, comment chains, links to things, etc) make the
> confluent
> > wiki a worse tool for this job than JIRA. Plus if we do it in JIRA we can
> > track the outstanding scope in the single board and it's far easier to
> > visualize everything in one place so we can all know where attention and
> > resources need to be directed to best move the needle on things.
> >
> > But that's just my opinion. What does everyone else think? Like the JIRA
> > route? Hate it? No opinion?
> >
> > If we do decide we want to go the epic / JIRA route, I'd be happy to
> > migrate the rest of the information in there for things that haven't been
> > completed yet on the wiki (ticket creation, assignee/reviewer chains,
> links
> > to epic).
> >
> > So what does everyone think?
> >
>
> I think this is a good idea. Having the resources available to keep the
> various bits twiddled correctly on existing and new issues has always been
> the hard part for us. So regardless of the path, what we really need is
> some dedicated PM time going forward. Is that something you think you can
> help resource from your side?
>
> (Also, thanks for all the efforts exploring this either way!!)
>

Re: Testing out JIRA as replacement for cwiki tracking of 4.0 quality testing

[Nate McCall]

> 
> My .02: I think it'd improve our ability to collaborate and lower friction
> to testing if we could do so on JIRA instead of the cwiki. *I suspect *the
> edit access restrictions there plus general UX friction (difficult to have
> collab discussion, comment chains, links to things, etc) make the confluent
> wiki a worse tool for this job than JIRA. Plus if we do it in JIRA we can
> track the outstanding scope in the single board and it's far easier to
> visualize everything in one place so we can all know where attention and
> resources need to be directed to best move the needle on things.
>
> But that's just my opinion. What does everyone else think? Like the JIRA
> route? Hate it? No opinion?
>
> If we do decide we want to go the epic / JIRA route, I'd be happy to
> migrate the rest of the information in there for things that haven't been
> completed yet on the wiki (ticket creation, assignee/reviewer chains, links
> to epic).
>
> So what does everyone think?
>

I think this is a good idea. Having the resources available to keep the
various bits twiddled correctly on existing and new issues has always been
the hard part for us. So regardless of the path, what we really need is
some dedicated PM time going forward. Is that something you think you can
help resource from your side?

(Also, thanks for all the efforts exploring this either way!!)

Re: Testing out JIRA as replacement for cwiki tracking of 4.0 quality testing

[Jordan West]

Thanks for taking this up Josh. I'm for whatever we think will result in a
more accurate view of progress. Edit access has been a friction point. I'd
like to hear from others as well too but generally I'm +1 to giving it a
shot.

Jordan

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 1:45 PM Joshua McKenzie 
wrote:

> From my 4.0 status progress email earlier today, we still have quite a few
> testing initiatives that are lacking Shepherds or tracking tickets in JIRA:
> [Areas needing Shepherds] - 6
> ...
>
> [Areas needing tracking tickets] - 11
> ...
>
> I went ahead and tried out the format of creating an epic in JIRA as a
> central location to collect this information in one place. The link for a
> WIP look at this is here: Link:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15536. I don't want to get
> too far into prototyping this as if we don't collectively want to go this
> route, I don't want to have 11 JIRAs created plus an epic we'd then delete
> and spam the list.
>
> My .02: I think it'd improve our ability to collaborate and lower friction
> to testing if we could do so on JIRA instead of the cwiki. *I suspect *the
> edit access restrictions there plus general UX friction (difficult to have
> collab discussion, comment chains, links to things, etc) make the confluent
> wiki a worse tool for this job than JIRA. Plus if we do it in JIRA we can
> track the outstanding scope in the single board and it's far easier to
> visualize everything in one place so we can all know where attention and
> resources need to be directed to best move the needle on things.
>
> But that's just my opinion. What does everyone else think? Like the JIRA
> route? Hate it? No opinion?
>
> If we do decide we want to go the epic / JIRA route, I'd be happy to
> migrate the rest of the information in there for things that haven't been
> completed yet on the wiki (ticket creation, assignee/reviewer chains, links
> to epic).
>
> So what does everyone think?
>

Testing out JIRA as replacement for cwiki tracking of 4.0 quality testing

[Joshua McKenzie]

>From my 4.0 status progress email earlier today, we still have quite a few
testing initiatives that are lacking Shepherds or tracking tickets in JIRA:
[Areas needing Shepherds] - 6
...

[Areas needing tracking tickets] - 11
...

I went ahead and tried out the format of creating an epic in JIRA as a
central location to collect this information in one place. The link for a
WIP look at this is here: Link:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15536. I don't want to get
too far into prototyping this as if we don't collectively want to go this
route, I don't want to have 11 JIRAs created plus an epic we'd then delete
and spam the list.

My .02: I think it'd improve our ability to collaborate and lower friction
to testing if we could do so on JIRA instead of the cwiki. *I suspect *the
edit access restrictions there plus general UX friction (difficult to have
collab discussion, comment chains, links to things, etc) make the confluent
wiki a worse tool for this job than JIRA. Plus if we do it in JIRA we can
track the outstanding scope in the single board and it's far easier to
visualize everything in one place so we can all know where attention and
resources need to be directed to best move the needle on things.

But that's just my opinion. What does everyone else think? Like the JIRA
route? Hate it? No opinion?

If we do decide we want to go the epic / JIRA route, I'd be happy to
migrate the rest of the information in there for things that haven't been
completed yet on the wiki (ticket creation, assignee/reviewer chains, links
to epic).

So what does everyone think?