Re: Switch Log4j to GitHub Issues
I’d like to know how we can get GitHub issue links included into the release info. Can we continue to use changes.xml? How are we going to handle issues already in Jira? We currently have 898 open issues. My guess is we will be lucky to ever get to 10% of them. But how do we lock down Jira while being able to work on those issues? Ralph > On Nov 4, 2022, at 10:07 AM, Matt Sicker wrote: > > Usage on a phone is certainly a nice advantage for GH. Same with the MFA > integration, though the ASF is working on integrating MFA with the rest of > their offered services over time. And it does make it easier for users to > submit issues now that Jira is restricted. > > We might want some method for people to submit bug reports who don’t want to > use GitHub, though that doesn’t need to be too formal (maybe just emailing > dev@). > >> On Nov 4, 2022, at 11:55 AM, Carter Kozak wrote: >> >> I’m supportive of using GitHub issues for a few reasons: >> It’s more inclusive to our users who can no longer create jira accounts. >> My account is more secure, requiring hardware tokens to log in. >> Unlike jira, it renders correctly on my phone. >> >> -ck >> >>> On Nov 4, 2022, at 09:43, Matt Sicker wrote: >>> >>> I’m fairly neutral on the change. At least you can reply to GitHub Issue >>> emails and have them added to the conversation (like with PRs). We don’t >>> really use any fancy Jira features that aren’t also available in GitHub. >>> On Nov 4, 2022, at 9:06 AM, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: Given the last update from INFRA that new JIRA accounts will only be allowed through (PMC?) approval, I propose switching Log4j issue tracking to GitHub Issues. Do you have any objections? If not, I volunteer to create a ticket for this and implement it. What needs to be done for Log4j? - Update[1] docs, READMEs, Confluence, POM files, anywhere JIRA is mentioned - See if `changes.xml` et al. still functions [1] While updating, I will keep a reference to JIRA too, wherever necessary. >>> >> >
Re: Switch Log4j to GitHub Issues
Usage on a phone is certainly a nice advantage for GH. Same with the MFA integration, though the ASF is working on integrating MFA with the rest of their offered services over time. And it does make it easier for users to submit issues now that Jira is restricted. We might want some method for people to submit bug reports who don’t want to use GitHub, though that doesn’t need to be too formal (maybe just emailing dev@). > On Nov 4, 2022, at 11:55 AM, Carter Kozak wrote: > > I’m supportive of using GitHub issues for a few reasons: > It’s more inclusive to our users who can no longer create jira accounts. > My account is more secure, requiring hardware tokens to log in. > Unlike jira, it renders correctly on my phone. > > -ck > >> On Nov 4, 2022, at 09:43, Matt Sicker wrote: >> >> I’m fairly neutral on the change. At least you can reply to GitHub Issue >> emails and have them added to the conversation (like with PRs). We don’t >> really use any fancy Jira features that aren’t also available in GitHub. >> >>> On Nov 4, 2022, at 9:06 AM, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: >>> >>> Given the last update from INFRA that new JIRA accounts will only be >>> allowed through (PMC?) approval, I propose switching Log4j issue tracking >>> to GitHub Issues. Do you have any objections? If not, I volunteer to create >>> a ticket for this and implement it. >>> >>> What needs to be done for Log4j? >>> - Update[1] docs, READMEs, Confluence, POM files, anywhere JIRA is mentioned >>> - See if `changes.xml` et al. still functions >>> >>> [1] While updating, I will keep a reference to JIRA too, wherever necessary. >> >
Re: Switch Log4j to GitHub Issues
I’m supportive of using GitHub issues for a few reasons: It’s more inclusive to our users who can no longer create jira accounts. My account is more secure, requiring hardware tokens to log in. Unlike jira, it renders correctly on my phone. -ck > On Nov 4, 2022, at 09:43, Matt Sicker wrote: > > I’m fairly neutral on the change. At least you can reply to GitHub Issue > emails and have them added to the conversation (like with PRs). We don’t > really use any fancy Jira features that aren’t also available in GitHub. > >> On Nov 4, 2022, at 9:06 AM, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: >> >> Given the last update from INFRA that new JIRA accounts will only be >> allowed through (PMC?) approval, I propose switching Log4j issue tracking >> to GitHub Issues. Do you have any objections? If not, I volunteer to create >> a ticket for this and implement it. >> >> What needs to be done for Log4j? >> - Update[1] docs, READMEs, Confluence, POM files, anywhere JIRA is mentioned >> - See if `changes.xml` et al. still functions >> >> [1] While updating, I will keep a reference to JIRA too, wherever necessary. >
Re: Switch Log4j to GitHub Issues
I’m fairly neutral on the change. At least you can reply to GitHub Issue emails and have them added to the conversation (like with PRs). We don’t really use any fancy Jira features that aren’t also available in GitHub. > On Nov 4, 2022, at 9:06 AM, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > > Given the last update from INFRA that new JIRA accounts will only be > allowed through (PMC?) approval, I propose switching Log4j issue tracking > to GitHub Issues. Do you have any objections? If not, I volunteer to create > a ticket for this and implement it. > > What needs to be done for Log4j? > - Update[1] docs, READMEs, Confluence, POM files, anywhere JIRA is mentioned > - See if `changes.xml` et al. still functions > > [1] While updating, I will keep a reference to JIRA too, wherever necessary.
Switch Log4j to GitHub Issues
Given the last update from INFRA that new JIRA accounts will only be allowed through (PMC?) approval, I propose switching Log4j issue tracking to GitHub Issues. Do you have any objections? If not, I volunteer to create a ticket for this and implement it. What needs to be done for Log4j? - Update[1] docs, READMEs, Confluence, POM files, anywhere JIRA is mentioned - See if `changes.xml` et al. still functions [1] While updating, I will keep a reference to JIRA too, wherever necessary.
