[jira] [Commented] (PYLUCENE-63) can not install pylucene on linux with proxy

[lisa.shi (Jira)]

[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PYLUCENE-63?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17532651#comment-17532651
 ] 

lisa.shi commented on PYLUCENE-63:
--

thank you for your help. your answer is very helpful

> can not install pylucene on linux  with proxy
> -
>
> Key: PYLUCENE-63
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PYLUCENE-63
> Project: PyLucene
>  Issue Type: Bug
> Environment: ubuntu 2020.4
>Reporter: lisa.shi
>Priority: Major
>
> i try to install pyylucene on linux  with proxy. i have already set 
> http_proxy on linux . i  have change Makefile .
> from 
> cd $(LUCENE); ($(ANT) ivy-availability-check || $(ANT) ivy-bootstrap )
> to
> cd $(LUCENE); ($(ANT) ivy-availability-check -autoproxy|| $(ANT) 
> ivy-bootstrap -autoproxy)
> then i can get ivy-2.4.0.jar in  ~/.ant/lib/
> when i try to make pyluence. i meet a bug.
>  
>  
> ivy:cachepath]           [https://repository.cloudera.com/artifactory/li]  
> bs-release-local/org/codehaus/groovy/groovy-all/2.4.17/groovy-all-2.4.17  .pom
> [ivy:cachepath]           – artifact org.codehaus.groovy#groovy-all;2.4  
> .17!groovy-all.jar:
> [ivy:cachepath]           [https://repository.cloudera.com/artifactory/li]  
> bs-release-local/org/codehaus/groovy/groovy-all/2.4.17/groovy-all-2.4.17  .jar
> [ivy:cachepath]                   
> ::
> [ivy:cachepath]                 ::          UNRESOLVED DEPENDENCIES           
> ::
> [ivy:cachepath]                   
> ::
> [ivy:cachepath]                 :: org.codehaus.groovy#groovy-all;2.4.17  : 
> not found
> [ivy:cachepath]                   
> ::
> [ivy:cachepath]  ERRORS
> [ivy:cachepath]         Server access error at url 
> [https://repo1.maven.o|https://repo1.maven.o/]  
> rg/maven2/org/codehaus/groovy/groovy-all/2.4.17/groovy-all-2.4.17.pom (j  
> ava.net.ConnectException: Connection timed out (Connection timed out))
> [ivy:cachepath]         Server access error at url 
> [https://repo1.maven.o|https://repo1.maven.o/]  
> rg/maven2/org/codehaus/groovy/groovy-all/2.4.17/groovy-all-2.4.17.jar (j  
> ava.net.ConnectException: Connection timed out (Connection timed out))
> [ivy:cachepath]         Server access error at url 
> [https://oss.sonatype|https://oss.sonatype/].  
> org/content/repositories/releases/org/codehaus/groovy/groovy-all/2.4.17/  
> groovy-all-2.4.17.pom (java.net.ConnectException: Connection timed out (  
> Connection timed out))
> [ivy:cachepath]         Server access error at url 
> [https://oss.sonatype|https://oss.sonatype/].  
> org/content/repositories/releases/org/codehaus/groovy/groovy-all/2.4.17/  
> groovy-all-2.4.17.jar (java.net.ConnectException: Connection timed out (  
> Connection timed out))
> [ivy:cachepath]         Server access error at url 
> [https://repository.cl|https://repository.cl/]  
> oudera.com/artifactory/libs-release-local/org/codehaus/groovy/groovy-all  
> /2.4.17/groovy-all-2.4.17.pom (java.net.ConnectException: Connection tim  ed 
> out (Connection timed out))
> [ivy:cachepath]         Server access error at url 
> [https://repository.cl|https://repository.cl/]  
> oudera.com/artifactory/libs-release-local/org/codehaus/groovy/groovy-all  
> /2.4.17/groovy-all-2.4.17.jar (java.net.ConnectException: Connection tim  ed 
> out (Connection timed out))
> [ivy:cachepath]
> [ivy:cachepath] :: USE VERBOSE OR DEBUG MESSAGE LEVEL FOR MORE DETAILS
> BUILD FAILED
>  
>  
> how can i fix this bug?
> i am sure the file ( 
> [https://repo1.maven.o|https://repo1.maven.o/]rg/maven2/org/codehaus/groovy/groovy-all/2.4.17/groovy-all-2.4.17.jar)
>  is not exist



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.7#820007)

Re: [DISCUSS] A proposal for migration to GitHub issue (LUCENE-10557)

[Tomoko Uchida]

Hi Yuting,
thanks for your feedback.
For your information, we have a general issue to improve our contribution
workflow: LUCENE-10543 ,
and this is actually a sub-task of it.
You and anyone can contribute to it by leaving comments, creating
documentation or instruction for developers, or whatever else (if you'd
like!).

I'll try to keep this thread a safe place for everyone though, I'd
especially appreciate feedback from newcomers like Vigya and Yuting, since
I understand and remember it is more difficult (and sometimes fearful) to
join discussions for new developers than long-time contributors.

Tomoko


2022年5月6日(金) 11:16 Yuti G :

> Hi Tomoko,
>
> Thanks for raising this discussion!
>
> As a new member of the Lucene community, I'm also confused by the input
> components when creating a Jira issue. I struggled with previewing my text
> and had to edit it after creating a Jira issue or a comment, and I just
> found that each re-edit would send an email notification to the list 
>
> I only used the GitHub issue system on a small team scale and I am getting
> familiar with Jira now. It would be very helpful if we can create a clear
> instruction/guide for new developers on how to create an issue no matter
> which system we choose in the future.
>
> Best,
> Yuting
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 6:00 PM Tomoko Uchida 
> wrote:
>
>> I'm not going to thoroughly discuss the migration path from Jira to
>> GitHub here, but generally, the rough image in my mind is the same as Jan
>> described -  "Milestone" for version tracking, and "labels" for other
>> purposes (issue types, component types, etc.).
>>
>> As for the proposal of in-house GitLab, it could be an option (if UI/UX
>> is the only problem) but I don't think it's feasible.
>> We need high availability platform and we don't have machine/human
>> resources to operate such mission-critical in-house service on our own.
>> And, even if it's possible, we still have to switch between two platforms -
>> it doesn't solve my problem.
>>
>> > That's precisely the crux of the disagreement: I want to be able to
>> register
>> > an account at Apache and *not* GitHub and still be able to contribute.
>>
>> > Is the original Jira -> GitHub move just a change of defaults or are
>> we,
>> > once moved to GitHub, not letting people use Jira at all anymore ?
>>
>> Interesting point - is there anyone else who doesn't have or use GitHub
>> account and *won't sign up or sign in for it* ?
>>
>> Tomoko
>>
>>
>> 2022年5月6日(金) 7:04 Uwe Schindler :
>>
>>> I agree with that.
>>>
>>> What annoys me is that I have to open a fake issue in Jira. I think we
>>> should allow people to open GitHub PR or issues. It gets reported also to
>>> mailing list. If a Lucene committer does not want to use GitHub, heshe can
>>> just download the PR as patch file and apply. Same for issues: all is
>>> mirrored to mailing list.
>>>
>>> If our users want to open issues they should do what they prefer.
>>>
>>> Uwe
>>>
>>> Am 5. Mai 2022 21:50:58 UTC schrieb Michael Sokolov >> >:

 Is the original Jira -> GitHub move just a change of defaults or are we,
> once moved to GitHub, not letting people use Jira at all anymore ?
>

 Nothing has been decided - it's all open for debate.

 I just want to re-state the idea (at least as I heard it) behind this
 proposed move is to make contributing more accessible.

 As for github banning people, just google "github banning" and you
 will see that people have been banned for a variety of reasons.

 I don't know if the risk of that outweighs the inconvenience of JIRA
 for the new developer.

 Please note that the primary avenue for contributions today *is
 already github*. So far we have not had any issues with people being
 banned, and if that were to happen, we still accept patch files in
 JIRA. We have had these two mechanisms in place for quite a while now
 and both are in active use.

 But this proposal is about issue tracking anyway: I just point out
 that we already rely on github in spite of its shortcomings.
 --
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

 --
>>> Uwe Schindler
>>> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
>>> https://www.thetaphi.de
>>>
>>

Re: automaton incremental updates

[Patrick Zhai]

Hi
I'm not sure if I understood your question correctly, but a normal way
lucene update an existing automaton is to intersect or union it with
another one (the new one with the updated data), those operations' code are
collected here:
https://github.com/apache/lucene/blob/main/lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/automaton/Operations.java

Patrick

On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 6:19 PM Tomoko Uchida 
wrote:

> Hi,
> I can't answer your question but I remember this issue -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10010
>
> Tomoko
>
>
> 2022年5月6日(金) 2:47 Petar Dambovaliev :
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I was looking for a way to update Non/Deterministic finite automatons
>> with new data.
>> Some people pointed out that "Lucene is doing that. You should ask them
>> how they do it.".
>> So here i am. I would appreciate it if someone can point me in the right
>> direction so i can see how you are doing this.
>> Thank you.
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] A proposal for migration to GitHub issue (LUCENE-10557)

[Yuti G]

Hi Tomoko,

Thanks for raising this discussion!

As a new member of the Lucene community, I'm also confused by the input
components when creating a Jira issue. I struggled with previewing my text
and had to edit it after creating a Jira issue or a comment, and I just
found that each re-edit would send an email notification to the list 

I only used the GitHub issue system on a small team scale and I am getting
familiar with Jira now. It would be very helpful if we can create a clear
instruction/guide for new developers on how to create an issue no matter
which system we choose in the future.

Best,
Yuting

On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 6:00 PM Tomoko Uchida 
wrote:

> I'm not going to thoroughly discuss the migration path from Jira to GitHub
> here, but generally, the rough image in my mind is the same as Jan
> described -  "Milestone" for version tracking, and "labels" for other
> purposes (issue types, component types, etc.).
>
> As for the proposal of in-house GitLab, it could be an option (if UI/UX is
> the only problem) but I don't think it's feasible.
> We need high availability platform and we don't have machine/human
> resources to operate such mission-critical in-house service on our own.
> And, even if it's possible, we still have to switch between two platforms -
> it doesn't solve my problem.
>
> > That's precisely the crux of the disagreement: I want to be able to
> register
> > an account at Apache and *not* GitHub and still be able to contribute.
>
> > Is the original Jira -> GitHub move just a change of defaults or are we,
> > once moved to GitHub, not letting people use Jira at all anymore ?
>
> Interesting point - is there anyone else who doesn't have or use GitHub
> account and *won't sign up or sign in for it* ?
>
> Tomoko
>
>
> 2022年5月6日(金) 7:04 Uwe Schindler :
>
>> I agree with that.
>>
>> What annoys me is that I have to open a fake issue in Jira. I think we
>> should allow people to open GitHub PR or issues. It gets reported also to
>> mailing list. If a Lucene committer does not want to use GitHub, heshe can
>> just download the PR as patch file and apply. Same for issues: all is
>> mirrored to mailing list.
>>
>> If our users want to open issues they should do what they prefer.
>>
>> Uwe
>>
>> Am 5. Mai 2022 21:50:58 UTC schrieb Michael Sokolov :
>>>
>>> Is the original Jira -> GitHub move just a change of defaults or are we,
 once moved to GitHub, not letting people use Jira at all anymore ?

>>>
>>> Nothing has been decided - it's all open for debate.
>>>
>>> I just want to re-state the idea (at least as I heard it) behind this
>>> proposed move is to make contributing more accessible.
>>>
>>> As for github banning people, just google "github banning" and you
>>> will see that people have been banned for a variety of reasons.
>>>
>>> I don't know if the risk of that outweighs the inconvenience of JIRA
>>> for the new developer.
>>>
>>> Please note that the primary avenue for contributions today *is
>>> already github*. So far we have not had any issues with people being
>>> banned, and if that were to happen, we still accept patch files in
>>> JIRA. We have had these two mechanisms in place for quite a while now
>>> and both are in active use.
>>>
>>> But this proposal is about issue tracking anyway: I just point out
>>> that we already rely on github in spite of its shortcomings.
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>> --
>> Uwe Schindler
>> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
>> https://www.thetaphi.de
>>
>

Re: automaton incremental updates

[Tomoko Uchida]

Hi,
I can't answer your question but I remember this issue -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10010

Tomoko


2022年5月6日(金) 2:47 Petar Dambovaliev :

> Hello,
>
> I was looking for a way to update Non/Deterministic finite automatons with
> new data.
> Some people pointed out that "Lucene is doing that. You should ask them
> how they do it.".
> So here i am. I would appreciate it if someone can point me in the right
> direction so i can see how you are doing this.
> Thank you.
>

Re: [DISCUSS] A proposal for migration to GitHub issue (LUCENE-10557)

[Tomoko Uchida]

I'm not going to thoroughly discuss the migration path from Jira to GitHub
here, but generally, the rough image in my mind is the same as Jan
described -  "Milestone" for version tracking, and "labels" for other
purposes (issue types, component types, etc.).

As for the proposal of in-house GitLab, it could be an option (if UI/UX is
the only problem) but I don't think it's feasible.
We need high availability platform and we don't have machine/human
resources to operate such mission-critical in-house service on our own.
And, even if it's possible, we still have to switch between two platforms -
it doesn't solve my problem.

> That's precisely the crux of the disagreement: I want to be able to
register
> an account at Apache and *not* GitHub and still be able to contribute.

> Is the original Jira -> GitHub move just a change of defaults or are we,
> once moved to GitHub, not letting people use Jira at all anymore ?

Interesting point - is there anyone else who doesn't have or use GitHub
account and *won't sign up or sign in for it* ?

Tomoko


2022年5月6日(金) 7:04 Uwe Schindler :

> I agree with that.
>
> What annoys me is that I have to open a fake issue in Jira. I think we
> should allow people to open GitHub PR or issues. It gets reported also to
> mailing list. If a Lucene committer does not want to use GitHub, heshe can
> just download the PR as patch file and apply. Same for issues: all is
> mirrored to mailing list.
>
> If our users want to open issues they should do what they prefer.
>
> Uwe
>
> Am 5. Mai 2022 21:50:58 UTC schrieb Michael Sokolov :
>>
>> Is the original Jira -> GitHub move just a change of defaults or are we,
>>> once moved to GitHub, not letting people use Jira at all anymore ?
>>>
>>
>> Nothing has been decided - it's all open for debate.
>>
>> I just want to re-state the idea (at least as I heard it) behind this
>> proposed move is to make contributing more accessible.
>>
>> As for github banning people, just google "github banning" and you
>> will see that people have been banned for a variety of reasons.
>>
>> I don't know if the risk of that outweighs the inconvenience of JIRA
>> for the new developer.
>>
>> Please note that the primary avenue for contributions today *is
>> already github*. So far we have not had any issues with people being
>> banned, and if that were to happen, we still accept patch files in
>> JIRA. We have had these two mechanisms in place for quite a while now
>> and both are in active use.
>>
>> But this proposal is about issue tracking anyway: I just point out
>> that we already rely on github in spite of its shortcomings.
>> --
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>
>> --
> Uwe Schindler
> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
> https://www.thetaphi.de
>

Re: [DISCUSS] A proposal for migration to GitHub issue (LUCENE-10557)

[Uwe Schindler]

I agree with that.

What annoys me is that I have to open a fake issue in Jira. I think we should 
allow people to open GitHub PR or issues. It gets reported also to mailing 
list. If a Lucene committer does not want to use GitHub, heshe can just 
download the PR as patch file and apply. Same for issues: all is mirrored to 
mailing list.

If our users want to open issues they should do what they prefer.

Uwe

Am 5. Mai 2022 21:50:58 UTC schrieb Michael Sokolov :
>> Is the original Jira -> GitHub move just a change of defaults or are we,
>> once moved to GitHub, not letting people use Jira at all anymore ?
>
>Nothing has been decided - it's all open for debate.
>
>I just want to re-state the idea (at least as I heard it) behind this
>proposed move is to make contributing more accessible.
>
>As for github banning people, just google "github banning" and you
>will see that people have been banned for a variety of reasons.
>
>I don't know if the risk of that outweighs the inconvenience of JIRA
>for the new developer.
>
>Please note that the primary avenue for contributions today *is
>already github*. So far we have not had any issues with people being
>banned, and if that were to happen, we still accept patch files in
>JIRA. We have had these two mechanisms in place for quite a while now
>and both are in active use.
>
>But this proposal is about issue tracking anyway: I just point out
>that we already rely on github in spite of its shortcomings.
>
>-
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>

--
Uwe Schindler
Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
https://www.thetaphi.de

Re: [DISCUSS] A proposal for migration to GitHub issue (LUCENE-10557)

[Vigya Sharma]

Thanks for starting this thread, Tomoko! Being fairly new to the community,
I can recall some early teething issues and offer a newcomer's perspective.

Jira took a while to get familiar with. I had used GitHub issues before,
for Elasticsearch and Opensearch. Having used Jira now, makes me like
GitHub a whole lot more. I like the standard markdown support, and overall
experience. GitHub labels (and their UX placement), are great for
discovering new issues and narrowing down your search. (I suppose Jira can
do that too, but haven't gotten there yet).

I remember frequently finding myself getting signed out and forgetting my
Jira password in my initial days. Not having to create another account for
Jira, or sign into two different systems is a big plus.


Vigya


On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 2:51 PM Michael Sokolov  wrote:

> > Is the original Jira -> GitHub move just a change of defaults or are we,
> > once moved to GitHub, not letting people use Jira at all anymore ?
>
> Nothing has been decided - it's all open for debate.
>
> I just want to re-state the idea (at least as I heard it) behind this
> proposed move is to make contributing more accessible.
>
> As for github banning people, just google "github banning" and you
> will see that people have been banned for a variety of reasons.
>
> I don't know if the risk of that outweighs the inconvenience of JIRA
> for the new developer.
>
> Please note that the primary avenue for contributions today *is
> already github*. So far we have not had any issues with people being
> banned, and if that were to happen, we still accept patch files in
> JIRA. We have had these two mechanisms in place for quite a while now
> and both are in active use.
>
> But this proposal is about issue tracking anyway: I just point out
> that we already rely on github in spite of its shortcomings.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>

-- 
- Vigya

Re: [DISCUSS] A proposal for migration to GitHub issue (LUCENE-10557)

[Michael Sokolov]

> Is the original Jira -> GitHub move just a change of defaults or are we,
> once moved to GitHub, not letting people use Jira at all anymore ?

Nothing has been decided - it's all open for debate.

I just want to re-state the idea (at least as I heard it) behind this
proposed move is to make contributing more accessible.

As for github banning people, just google "github banning" and you
will see that people have been banned for a variety of reasons.

I don't know if the risk of that outweighs the inconvenience of JIRA
for the new developer.

Please note that the primary avenue for contributions today *is
already github*. So far we have not had any issues with people being
banned, and if that were to happen, we still accept patch files in
JIRA. We have had these two mechanisms in place for quite a while now
and both are in active use.

But this proposal is about issue tracking anyway: I just point out
that we already rely on github in spite of its shortcomings.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] A proposal for migration to GitHub issue (LUCENE-10557)

[Andi Vajda]

On Thu, 5 May 2022, Jan Høydahl wrote:

ASF has officially blessed use of github issues as alternative to Jira. 
They are not going to setup a private GitLab or tool X. While GitLab is 
nice, I don't think the main intention with the proposal was to inroduce 
yet another platform where contributors need to register an account and 
learn the UI :)


That's precisely the crux of the disagreement: I want to be able to register 
an account at Apache and *not* GitHub and still be able to contribute. So 
yes, registering accounts in various places makes one's participation in 
them more resilient to auto-banning-without-due-process-nor-recourse.


As for learning the new UI, GitLab and GitHub are very alike.

Is the original Jira -> GitHub move just a change of defaults or are we, 
once moved to GitHub, not letting people use Jira at all anymore ?


Andi..




GitHub issues versions are tracked in "Milestones" - 
https://docs.github.com/en/issues/using-labels-and-milestones-to-track-work/about-milestones 


See example from solr-operator. These issues or PRs were released in v0.5.1: 
https://github.com/apache/solr-operator/milestone/8?closed=1 

Labels are also very flexibl.

Jan


5. mai 2022 kl. 22:18 skrev David Smiley :

Is anyone familiar with using GitHub (or maybe GitLab I suppose) for tracking metadata 
about the issue -- something JIRA excels at?  For example the version of our project that 
a given PR is released in -- aka the JIRA "Fix Version"?

~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley 


On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 10:24 PM Tomoko Uchida mailto:tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello everyone!

Recently, we relaxed the requirement for creating a Jira issue when opening a pull 
request (LUCENE-10545 ).

As the next and bigger (perhaps ambitious) step, I opened a rough proposal for 
migration to GitHub issue from Jira.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557 


According to the INFRA issue for the RocketMQ project (Michael McCandless gave 
the pointer in a comment on the issue; thanks!), a PMC agreement or Vote result 
is needed for the decision.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15702 


Eventually, we'd need a formal vote, but before that, I'd like to hear general 
opinions/thoughts (or feelings) on this topic from developers.

In brief, I think it'd be technically possible and also be good for the project 
- not only for welcoming new developers who are not familiar with Jira, but 
also for improving the experiences of long-term contributors by consolidating 
the conversation platform.
It'll need some administrative work though, I'm willing to work for it if we 
reach an agreement.

Please note that:
* This is not a VOTE. Simple vote-style feedback (+/- 1) is welcome, but we 
don't aim to reach a conclusion in this thread.
* Let's not discuss "how to migrate existing Jira issues" for now. Once we 
decide the migration will be good for us, then we can try to figure out a reasonable 
solution for technical/administrative matters.

I may be too optimistic about it; but - a bit of stupidness will be needed to 
start such a move, and I'm serious about this proposal :)

Thanks and regards,
Tomoko




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] A proposal for migration to GitHub issue (LUCENE-10557)

[Jan Høydahl]

ASF has officially blessed use of github issues as alternative to Jira. They 
are not going to setup a private GitLab or tool X. While GitLab is nice, I 
don't think the main intention with the proposal was to inroduce yet another 
platform where contributors need to register an account and learn the UI :)


GitHub issues versions are tracked in "Milestones" - 
https://docs.github.com/en/issues/using-labels-and-milestones-to-track-work/about-milestones
 

 

See example from solr-operator. These issues or PRs were released in v0.5.1: 
https://github.com/apache/solr-operator/milestone/8?closed=1 

Labels are also very flexibl.

Jan

> 5. mai 2022 kl. 22:18 skrev David Smiley :
> 
> Is anyone familiar with using GitHub (or maybe GitLab I suppose) for tracking 
> metadata about the issue -- something JIRA excels at?  For example the 
> version of our project that a given PR is released in -- aka the JIRA "Fix 
> Version"?
> 
> ~ David Smiley
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley 
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 10:24 PM Tomoko Uchida  > wrote:
> Hello everyone!
> 
> Recently, we relaxed the requirement for creating a Jira issue when opening a 
> pull request (LUCENE-10545 
> ).
> 
> As the next and bigger (perhaps ambitious) step, I opened a rough proposal 
> for migration to GitHub issue from Jira.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557 
> 
> 
> According to the INFRA issue for the RocketMQ project (Michael McCandless 
> gave the pointer in a comment on the issue; thanks!), a PMC agreement or Vote 
> result is needed for the decision.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15702 
> 
> 
> Eventually, we'd need a formal vote, but before that, I'd like to hear 
> general opinions/thoughts (or feelings) on this topic from developers.
> 
> In brief, I think it'd be technically possible and also be good for the 
> project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not familiar with 
> Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term contributors by 
> consolidating the conversation platform. 
> It'll need some administrative work though, I'm willing to work for it if we 
> reach an agreement.
> 
> Please note that:
> * This is not a VOTE. Simple vote-style feedback (+/- 1) is welcome, but we 
> don't aim to reach a conclusion in this thread.
> * Let's not discuss "how to migrate existing Jira issues" for now. Once we 
> decide the migration will be good for us, then we can try to figure out a 
> reasonable solution for technical/administrative matters. 
> 
> I may be too optimistic about it; but - a bit of stupidness will be needed to 
> start such a move, and I'm serious about this proposal :)
> 
> Thanks and regards,
> Tomoko

Re: [DISCUSS] A proposal for migration to GitHub issue (LUCENE-10557)

[David Smiley]

Is anyone familiar with using GitHub (or maybe GitLab I suppose) for
tracking metadata about the issue -- something JIRA excels at?  For example
the version of our project that a given PR is released in -- aka the JIRA
"Fix Version"?

~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley


On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 10:24 PM Tomoko Uchida 
wrote:

> Hello everyone!
>
> Recently, we relaxed the requirement for creating a Jira issue when
> opening a pull request (LUCENE-10545
> ).
>
> As the next and bigger (perhaps ambitious) step, I opened a rough proposal
> for migration to GitHub issue from Jira.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
>
> According to the INFRA issue for the RocketMQ project (Michael McCandless
> gave the pointer in a comment on the issue; thanks!), a PMC agreement or
> Vote result is needed for the decision.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15702
>
> Eventually, we'd need a formal vote, but before that, I'd like to hear
> general opinions/thoughts (or feelings) on this topic from developers.
>
> In brief, I think it'd be technically possible and also be good for the
> project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not familiar with
> Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term contributors by
> consolidating the conversation platform.
> It'll need some administrative work though, I'm willing to work for it if
> we reach an agreement.
>
> Please note that:
> * This is not a VOTE. Simple vote-style feedback (+/- 1) is welcome, but
> we don't aim to reach a conclusion in this thread.
> * Let's not discuss "how to migrate existing Jira issues" for now. Once we
> decide the migration will be good for us, then we can try to figure out a
> reasonable solution for technical/administrative matters.
>
> I may be too optimistic about it; but - a bit of stupidness will be needed
> to start such a move, and I'm serious about this proposal :)
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Tomoko
>

Re: [DISCUSS] A proposal for migration to GitHub issue (LUCENE-10557)

[Andi Vajda]

> On May 5, 2022, at 08:49, Tomoko Uchida  wrote:
> 
> 
> It's really interesting to me to hear how others feel comfortable (or 
> discomfortable) with the tools!
> 
> I myself am not an expert of either JIra or GitHub, and actually have no 
> feelings on which tool is better. 
> The only motivation for my proposal was, "consolidate the conversation 
> platform and reduce the context switch between two platforms".
> 
> However, I don't want to narrow the theme of conversation too early, so 
> please freely express your thoughts. 

My main gripe with Jira is that I can't respond to Jira comments via email. I 
have to always use their interface.

Andi..

> 
> Hi Ishan,
> 
> > I'm generally opposed to this idea because GitHub has been known to take 
> > political decisions to cut off access to developers just because of their 
> > nationality/region etc.
> 
> Sorry I haven't heard of such matters for GitHub. Can you please present the 
> reference?
> 
> Tomoko
> 
> 
> 2022年5月6日(金) 0:41 Ishan Chattopadhyaya :
>> (Repeating in public what I mentioned in private)
>> 
>> 
>> I'm generally opposed to this idea because GitHub has been known to take 
>> political decisions to cut off access to developers just because of their 
>> nationality/region etc. As a community, we should stay politically neutral 
>> and not rely on GitHub to decide on our behalf who to exclude from our 
>> community.
>> 
>>> On Thu, 5 May, 2022, 8:45 pm Jan Høydahl,  wrote:
>>> Given how JIRA has become a monster of a product with different markup 
>>> syntax for each version, and bugs everywhere (does not even work on 
>>> mobile), I'm no longer the JIRA fan I once was.
>>> 
>>> In Solr we already use github issues for the Solr-Operator sub project 
>>> https://github.com/apache/solr-operator/issues and I believe it has worked 
>>> well. Of course excellent integration with PRs :)
>>> In earlier discussions on this topic, the idea has been shot down with the 
>>> argument of split bug history and migration challenges. But I think you are 
>>> wise to delay the HOW discussion for now.
>>> This discussion should also not be about politics. Some may be opposed to 
>>> Microsoft and GitHub, but as long as the ASF has officially blessed github 
>>> as an official option, i'ts not a very constructive discussion.
>>> The most important decision point on my part is perception by new / young 
>>> users. Look at OpenOffice, they have remained on Bugzilla - are you 
>>> compelled to contribute? :)
>>> 
>>> Jan
>>> 
 5. mai 2022 kl. 04:23 skrev Tomoko Uchida :
 
 Hello everyone!
 
 Recently, we relaxed the requirement for creating a Jira issue when 
 opening a pull request (LUCENE-10545).
 
 As the next and bigger (perhaps ambitious) step, I opened a rough proposal 
 for migration to GitHub issue from Jira.
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
 
 According to the INFRA issue for the RocketMQ project (Michael McCandless 
 gave the pointer in a comment on the issue; thanks!), a PMC agreement or 
 Vote result is needed for the decision.
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15702
 
 Eventually, we'd need a formal vote, but before that, I'd like to hear 
 general opinions/thoughts (or feelings) on this topic from developers.
 
 In brief, I think it'd be technically possible and also be good for the 
 project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not familiar with 
 Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term contributors by 
 consolidating the conversation platform. 
 It'll need some administrative work though, I'm willing to work for it if 
 we reach an agreement.
 
 Please note that:
 * This is not a VOTE. Simple vote-style feedback (+/- 1) is welcome, but 
 we don't aim to reach a conclusion in this thread.
 * Let's not discuss "how to migrate existing Jira issues" for now. Once we 
 decide the migration will be good for us, then we can try to figure out a 
 reasonable solution for technical/administrative matters. 
 
 I may be too optimistic about it; but - a bit of stupidness will be needed 
 to start such a move, and I'm serious about this proposal :)
 
 Thanks and regards,
 Tomoko
>>> 

automaton incremental updates

[Petar Dambovaliev]

Hello,

I was looking for a way to update Non/Deterministic finite automatons with
new data.
Some people pointed out that "Lucene is doing that. You should ask them how
they do it.".
So here i am. I would appreciate it if someone can point me in the right
direction so i can see how you are doing this.
Thank you.

Re: [DISCUSS] A proposal for migration to GitHub issue (LUCENE-10557)

[Tomoko Uchida]

OK, I think it's a healthy discussion everyone can make an assertion
(agreement or disagreement, or whatever else).

I'd ask all just one thing - if you criticize or strongly oppose any tools,
please present references that support your opinion.

Thank you,
Tomoko


2022年5月6日(金) 1:17 Andi Vajda :

>
> On May 5, 2022, at 08:41, Ishan Chattopadhyaya 
> wrote:
>
> 
> (Repeating in public what I mentioned in private)
>
>
> I'm generally opposed to this idea because GitHub has been known to take
> political decisions to cut off access to developers just because of their
> nationality/region etc. As a community, we should stay politically neutral
> and not rely on GitHub to decide on our behalf who to exclude from our
> community.
>
>
> Agreed. My main issue with hosted services like GitHub and others like it
> is that as they there is no due process, very little recourse, when some AI
> or other automated process gets you banned. Again, this is an issue for all
> such services and it's worse the bigger they are. It's also an "all eggs in
> the same basket" problem.
> Thus, I prefer to depend on Apache than on GitHub.
> If we want to move off of Jira, I think doing so on a self (Apache)-hosted
> instance of GitLab would be a lot better and offer the same enticing eye
> candy and issue/PR integration as GitHub.
>
> Andi..
>
>
>
> On Thu, 5 May, 2022, 8:45 pm Jan Høydahl,  wrote:
>
>> Given how JIRA has become a monster of a product with different markup
>> syntax for each version, and bugs everywhere (does not even work on
>> mobile), I'm no longer the JIRA fan I once was.
>>
>> In Solr we already use github issues for the Solr-Operator sub project
>> https://github.com/apache/solr-operator/issues and I believe it has
>> worked well. Of course excellent integration with PRs :)
>> In earlier discussions on this topic, the idea has been shot down with
>> the argument of split bug history and migration challenges. But I think you
>> are wise to delay the HOW discussion for now.
>> This discussion should also not be about politics. Some may be opposed to
>> Microsoft and GitHub, but as long as the ASF has officially blessed github
>> as an official option, i'ts not a very constructive discussion.
>> The most important decision point on my part is perception by new / young
>> users. Look at OpenOffice, they have remained on Bugzilla - are you
>> compelled to contribute? :)
>>
>> Jan
>>
>> 5. mai 2022 kl. 04:23 skrev Tomoko Uchida :
>>
>> Hello everyone!
>>
>> Recently, we relaxed the requirement for creating a Jira issue when
>> opening a pull request (LUCENE-10545
>> ).
>>
>> As the next and bigger (perhaps ambitious) step, I opened a rough
>> proposal for migration to GitHub issue from Jira.
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
>>
>> According to the INFRA issue for the RocketMQ project (Michael McCandless
>> gave the pointer in a comment on the issue; thanks!), a PMC agreement or
>> Vote result is needed for the decision.
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15702
>>
>> Eventually, we'd need a formal vote, but before that, I'd like to hear
>> general opinions/thoughts (or feelings) on this topic from developers.
>>
>> In brief, I think it'd be technically possible and also be good for the
>> project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not familiar with
>> Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term contributors by
>> consolidating the conversation platform.
>> It'll need some administrative work though, I'm willing to work for it if
>> we reach an agreement.
>>
>> Please note that:
>> * This is not a VOTE. Simple vote-style feedback (+/- 1) is welcome, but
>> we don't aim to reach a conclusion in this thread.
>> * Let's not discuss "how to migrate existing Jira issues" for now. Once
>> we decide the migration will be good for us, then we can try to figure out
>> a reasonable solution for technical/administrative matters.
>>
>> I may be too optimistic about it; but - a bit of stupidness will be
>> needed to start such a move, and I'm serious about this proposal :)
>>
>> Thanks and regards,
>> Tomoko
>>
>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] A proposal for migration to GitHub issue (LUCENE-10557)

[Andi Vajda]

> On May 5, 2022, at 08:41, Ishan Chattopadhyaya  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> (Repeating in public what I mentioned in private)
> 
> 
> I'm generally opposed to this idea because GitHub has been known to take 
> political decisions to cut off access to developers just because of their 
> nationality/region etc. As a community, we should stay politically neutral 
> and not rely on GitHub to decide on our behalf who to exclude from our 
> community.

Agreed. My main issue with hosted services like GitHub and others like it is 
that as they there is no due process, very little recourse, when some AI or 
other automated process gets you banned. Again, this is an issue for all such 
services and it's worse the bigger they are. It's also an "all eggs in the same 
basket" problem.
Thus, I prefer to depend on Apache than on GitHub.
If we want to move off of Jira, I think doing so on a self (Apache)-hosted 
instance of GitLab would be a lot better and offer the same enticing eye candy 
and issue/PR integration as GitHub.

Andi..


> 
>> On Thu, 5 May, 2022, 8:45 pm Jan Høydahl,  wrote:
>> Given how JIRA has become a monster of a product with different markup 
>> syntax for each version, and bugs everywhere (does not even work on mobile), 
>> I'm no longer the JIRA fan I once was.
>> 
>> In Solr we already use github issues for the Solr-Operator sub project 
>> https://github.com/apache/solr-operator/issues and I believe it has worked 
>> well. Of course excellent integration with PRs :)
>> In earlier discussions on this topic, the idea has been shot down with the 
>> argument of split bug history and migration challenges. But I think you are 
>> wise to delay the HOW discussion for now.
>> This discussion should also not be about politics. Some may be opposed to 
>> Microsoft and GitHub, but as long as the ASF has officially blessed github 
>> as an official option, i'ts not a very constructive discussion.
>> The most important decision point on my part is perception by new / young 
>> users. Look at OpenOffice, they have remained on Bugzilla - are you 
>> compelled to contribute? :)
>> 
>> Jan
>> 
>>> 5. mai 2022 kl. 04:23 skrev Tomoko Uchida :
>>> 
>>> Hello everyone!
>>> 
>>> Recently, we relaxed the requirement for creating a Jira issue when opening 
>>> a pull request (LUCENE-10545).
>>> 
>>> As the next and bigger (perhaps ambitious) step, I opened a rough proposal 
>>> for migration to GitHub issue from Jira.
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
>>> 
>>> According to the INFRA issue for the RocketMQ project (Michael McCandless 
>>> gave the pointer in a comment on the issue; thanks!), a PMC agreement or 
>>> Vote result is needed for the decision.
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15702
>>> 
>>> Eventually, we'd need a formal vote, but before that, I'd like to hear 
>>> general opinions/thoughts (or feelings) on this topic from developers.
>>> 
>>> In brief, I think it'd be technically possible and also be good for the 
>>> project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not familiar with 
>>> Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term contributors by 
>>> consolidating the conversation platform. 
>>> It'll need some administrative work though, I'm willing to work for it if 
>>> we reach an agreement.
>>> 
>>> Please note that:
>>> * This is not a VOTE. Simple vote-style feedback (+/- 1) is welcome, but we 
>>> don't aim to reach a conclusion in this thread.
>>> * Let's not discuss "how to migrate existing Jira issues" for now. Once we 
>>> decide the migration will be good for us, then we can try to figure out a 
>>> reasonable solution for technical/administrative matters. 
>>> 
>>> I may be too optimistic about it; but - a bit of stupidness will be needed 
>>> to start such a move, and I'm serious about this proposal :)
>>> 
>>> Thanks and regards,
>>> Tomoko
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] A proposal for migration to GitHub issue (LUCENE-10557)

[Tomoko Uchida]

It's really interesting to me to hear how others feel comfortable (or
discomfortable) with the tools!

I myself am not an expert of either JIra or GitHub, and actually have no
feelings on which tool is better.
The only motivation for my proposal was, "consolidate the conversation
platform and reduce the context switch between two platforms".

However, I don't want to narrow the theme of conversation too early, so
please freely express your thoughts.

Hi Ishan,

> I'm generally opposed to this idea because GitHub has been known to take
political decisions to cut off access to developers just because of their
nationality/region etc.

Sorry I haven't heard of such matters for GitHub. Can you please present
the reference?

Tomoko


2022年5月6日(金) 0:41 Ishan Chattopadhyaya :

> (Repeating in public what I mentioned in private)
>
>
> I'm generally opposed to this idea because GitHub has been known to take
> political decisions to cut off access to developers just because of their
> nationality/region etc. As a community, we should stay politically neutral
> and not rely on GitHub to decide on our behalf who to exclude from our
> community.
>
> On Thu, 5 May, 2022, 8:45 pm Jan Høydahl,  wrote:
>
>> Given how JIRA has become a monster of a product with different markup
>> syntax for each version, and bugs everywhere (does not even work on
>> mobile), I'm no longer the JIRA fan I once was.
>>
>> In Solr we already use github issues for the Solr-Operator sub project
>> https://github.com/apache/solr-operator/issues and I believe it has
>> worked well. Of course excellent integration with PRs :)
>> In earlier discussions on this topic, the idea has been shot down with
>> the argument of split bug history and migration challenges. But I think you
>> are wise to delay the HOW discussion for now.
>> This discussion should also not be about politics. Some may be opposed to
>> Microsoft and GitHub, but as long as the ASF has officially blessed github
>> as an official option, i'ts not a very constructive discussion.
>> The most important decision point on my part is perception by new / young
>> users. Look at OpenOffice, they have remained on Bugzilla - are you
>> compelled to contribute? :)
>>
>> Jan
>>
>> 5. mai 2022 kl. 04:23 skrev Tomoko Uchida :
>>
>> Hello everyone!
>>
>> Recently, we relaxed the requirement for creating a Jira issue when
>> opening a pull request (LUCENE-10545
>> ).
>>
>> As the next and bigger (perhaps ambitious) step, I opened a rough
>> proposal for migration to GitHub issue from Jira.
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
>>
>> According to the INFRA issue for the RocketMQ project (Michael McCandless
>> gave the pointer in a comment on the issue; thanks!), a PMC agreement or
>> Vote result is needed for the decision.
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15702
>>
>> Eventually, we'd need a formal vote, but before that, I'd like to hear
>> general opinions/thoughts (or feelings) on this topic from developers.
>>
>> In brief, I think it'd be technically possible and also be good for the
>> project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not familiar with
>> Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term contributors by
>> consolidating the conversation platform.
>> It'll need some administrative work though, I'm willing to work for it if
>> we reach an agreement.
>>
>> Please note that:
>> * This is not a VOTE. Simple vote-style feedback (+/- 1) is welcome, but
>> we don't aim to reach a conclusion in this thread.
>> * Let's not discuss "how to migrate existing Jira issues" for now. Once
>> we decide the migration will be good for us, then we can try to figure out
>> a reasonable solution for technical/administrative matters.
>>
>> I may be too optimistic about it; but - a bit of stupidness will be
>> needed to start such a move, and I'm serious about this proposal :)
>>
>> Thanks and regards,
>> Tomoko
>>
>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] A proposal for migration to GitHub issue (LUCENE-10557)

[Ishan Chattopadhyaya]

(Repeating in public what I mentioned in private)


I'm generally opposed to this idea because GitHub has been known to take
political decisions to cut off access to developers just because of their
nationality/region etc. As a community, we should stay politically neutral
and not rely on GitHub to decide on our behalf who to exclude from our
community.

On Thu, 5 May, 2022, 8:45 pm Jan Høydahl,  wrote:

> Given how JIRA has become a monster of a product with different markup
> syntax for each version, and bugs everywhere (does not even work on
> mobile), I'm no longer the JIRA fan I once was.
>
> In Solr we already use github issues for the Solr-Operator sub project
> https://github.com/apache/solr-operator/issues and I believe it has
> worked well. Of course excellent integration with PRs :)
> In earlier discussions on this topic, the idea has been shot down with the
> argument of split bug history and migration challenges. But I think you are
> wise to delay the HOW discussion for now.
> This discussion should also not be about politics. Some may be opposed to
> Microsoft and GitHub, but as long as the ASF has officially blessed github
> as an official option, i'ts not a very constructive discussion.
> The most important decision point on my part is perception by new / young
> users. Look at OpenOffice, they have remained on Bugzilla - are you
> compelled to contribute? :)
>
> Jan
>
> 5. mai 2022 kl. 04:23 skrev Tomoko Uchida :
>
> Hello everyone!
>
> Recently, we relaxed the requirement for creating a Jira issue when
> opening a pull request (LUCENE-10545
> ).
>
> As the next and bigger (perhaps ambitious) step, I opened a rough proposal
> for migration to GitHub issue from Jira.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
>
> According to the INFRA issue for the RocketMQ project (Michael McCandless
> gave the pointer in a comment on the issue; thanks!), a PMC agreement or
> Vote result is needed for the decision.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15702
>
> Eventually, we'd need a formal vote, but before that, I'd like to hear
> general opinions/thoughts (or feelings) on this topic from developers.
>
> In brief, I think it'd be technically possible and also be good for the
> project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not familiar with
> Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term contributors by
> consolidating the conversation platform.
> It'll need some administrative work though, I'm willing to work for it if
> we reach an agreement.
>
> Please note that:
> * This is not a VOTE. Simple vote-style feedback (+/- 1) is welcome, but
> we don't aim to reach a conclusion in this thread.
> * Let's not discuss "how to migrate existing Jira issues" for now. Once we
> decide the migration will be good for us, then we can try to figure out a
> reasonable solution for technical/administrative matters.
>
> I may be too optimistic about it; but - a bit of stupidness will be needed
> to start such a move, and I'm serious about this proposal :)
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Tomoko
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] A proposal for migration to GitHub issue (LUCENE-10557)

[Jan Høydahl]

Given how JIRA has become a monster of a product with different markup syntax 
for each version, and bugs everywhere (does not even work on mobile), I'm no 
longer the JIRA fan I once was.

In Solr we already use github issues for the Solr-Operator sub project 
https://github.com/apache/solr-operator/issues 
 and I believe it has worked 
well. Of course excellent integration with PRs :)
In earlier discussions on this topic, the idea has been shot down with the 
argument of split bug history and migration challenges. But I think you are 
wise to delay the HOW discussion for now.
This discussion should also not be about politics. Some may be opposed to 
Microsoft and GitHub, but as long as the ASF has officially blessed github as 
an official option, i'ts not a very constructive discussion.
The most important decision point on my part is perception by new / young 
users. Look at OpenOffice, they have remained on Bugzilla - are you compelled 
to contribute? :)

Jan

> 5. mai 2022 kl. 04:23 skrev Tomoko Uchida :
> 
> Hello everyone!
> 
> Recently, we relaxed the requirement for creating a Jira issue when opening a 
> pull request (LUCENE-10545 
> ).
> 
> As the next and bigger (perhaps ambitious) step, I opened a rough proposal 
> for migration to GitHub issue from Jira.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557 
> 
> 
> According to the INFRA issue for the RocketMQ project (Michael McCandless 
> gave the pointer in a comment on the issue; thanks!), a PMC agreement or Vote 
> result is needed for the decision.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15702 
> 
> 
> Eventually, we'd need a formal vote, but before that, I'd like to hear 
> general opinions/thoughts (or feelings) on this topic from developers.
> 
> In brief, I think it'd be technically possible and also be good for the 
> project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not familiar with 
> Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term contributors by 
> consolidating the conversation platform. 
> It'll need some administrative work though, I'm willing to work for it if we 
> reach an agreement.
> 
> Please note that:
> * This is not a VOTE. Simple vote-style feedback (+/- 1) is welcome, but we 
> don't aim to reach a conclusion in this thread.
> * Let's not discuss "how to migrate existing Jira issues" for now. Once we 
> decide the migration will be good for us, then we can try to figure out a 
> reasonable solution for technical/administrative matters. 
> 
> I may be too optimistic about it; but - a bit of stupidness will be needed to 
> start such a move, and I'm serious about this proposal :)
> 
> Thanks and regards,
> Tomoko

Re: [DISCUSS] A proposal for migration to GitHub issue (LUCENE-10557)

[Tomoko Uchida]

Ah sorry, if I unintentionally went off the track.

Thanks for your comments - I'll keep this thread for a sufficient period of
time and read all messages.
It's an open discussion and any comments from all developers (PMC members,
committers, contributors) are welcomed and respected.

Tomoko


2022年5月5日(木) 21:26 Robert Muir :

> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 8:14 AM Tomoko Uchida
>  wrote:
> >
> > Just for a supplement - I did not know that either, but I think it's not
> only abouit Jira.
> > I've seen several times developers in China sometimes struggle also with
> connecting to GitHub - may be due to the so-called Great Firewall.
> > I've also seen the same situation in other services (video chat, etc.)
> so I guess it's a general issue that the free internet connection is not
> necessarily always available in all countries/regions.
> >
>
> In the past we have had other GFW issues, for example with the build
> system not working in China. I remember doing crazy stuff like this:
>
> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/commit/f8577e6cb4f228b7280fca627d4ba712a5fde70a
> It is difficult for those of us outside of China to help with this
> issue, we can't easily test or anything like that. But IMO we should
> try.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] A proposal for migration to GitHub issue (LUCENE-10557)

[Robert Muir]

On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 8:14 AM Tomoko Uchida
 wrote:
>
> Just for a supplement - I did not know that either, but I think it's not only 
> abouit Jira.
> I've seen several times developers in China sometimes struggle also with 
> connecting to GitHub - may be due to the so-called Great Firewall.
> I've also seen the same situation in other services (video chat, etc.) so I 
> guess it's a general issue that the free internet connection is not 
> necessarily always available in all countries/regions.
>

In the past we have had other GFW issues, for example with the build
system not working in China. I remember doing crazy stuff like this:
https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/commit/f8577e6cb4f228b7280fca627d4ba712a5fde70a
It is difficult for those of us outside of China to help with this
issue, we can't easily test or anything like that. But IMO we should
try.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] A proposal for migration to GitHub issue (LUCENE-10557)

[Tomoko Uchida]

> The original motivation for the
> INFRA issue linked above is interesting to me. I didn't know
> contributors from China struggled to access Apache JIRA.

Just for a supplement - I did not know that either, but I think it's not
only abouit Jira.
I've seen several times developers in China sometimes struggle also with
connecting to GitHub - may be due to the so-called Great Firewall.
I've also seen the same situation in other services (video chat, etc.) so I
guess it's a general issue that the free internet connection is not
necessarily always available in all countries/regions.

Tomoko


2022年5月5日(木) 20:56 Robert Muir :

> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 7:49 AM Michael Sokolov  wrote:
> > 5. I find the Github commenting UI confusing -- what is the difference
> > between conversation and review comments? How can I reply to a
> > comment?  What if I want to batch up a bunch of replies and send one
> > email with all of them? Maybe it's just me, but I haven't found
> > comfort with this yet.
>
> As far as replies, in github I highlight the part of the thing i want
> to reply to, and press 'r' key on my keyboard. it quotes it and
> everything. Really convenient to me.
>
> On the other hand, in JIRA, I have to copy/paste myself and add inside
> a {quote} bracket, and try to remember to terminate it with another
> {quote} (or it gets really confused). I've used JIRA enough to know
> that it is unsafe to switch back and forth between "Visual" and "Text"
> modes, you might lose your entire comment due to its bugs. So its
> impossible to preview what your stuff will look like, you just have to
> comment and "hope for the best". This probably causes unnecessary
> edits which make even more unholy noise :)
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] A proposal for migration to GitHub issue (LUCENE-10557)

[Robert Muir]

On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 7:49 AM Michael Sokolov  wrote:
> 5. I find the Github commenting UI confusing -- what is the difference
> between conversation and review comments? How can I reply to a
> comment?  What if I want to batch up a bunch of replies and send one
> email with all of them? Maybe it's just me, but I haven't found
> comfort with this yet.

As far as replies, in github I highlight the part of the thing i want
to reply to, and press 'r' key on my keyboard. it quotes it and
everything. Really convenient to me.

On the other hand, in JIRA, I have to copy/paste myself and add inside
a {quote} bracket, and try to remember to terminate it with another
{quote} (or it gets really confused). I've used JIRA enough to know
that it is unsafe to switch back and forth between "Visual" and "Text"
modes, you might lose your entire comment due to its bugs. So its
impossible to preview what your stuff will look like, you just have to
comment and "hope for the best". This probably causes unnecessary
edits which make even more unholy noise :)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] A proposal for migration to GitHub issue (LUCENE-10557)

[Michael Sokolov]

I'd like to see some discussion of pros/cons. Personally I don't have
a lot of experience working with github's issue system, while I have
grown comfortable with JIRA over the years, in spite of its warts.
Here are a few things I like and *don't* like about both systems
(mostly JIRA), but I don't know how github would compare:

1. non-standard text markup is forever confusing me (am I in "markup"
mode or "visual" mode?)
2. search is cumbersome and difficult to use (but Mike M made
https://jirasearch.mikemccandless.com/ which counters this problem)
3. setup is highly configurable, in terms of workflow, statuses,
permissions and so on. Not sure if we need this though?
4. something in our current setup creates a lot of noise on the
mailing list -- every comment seems to appear at least three times,
sometimes formatted nicely, and other times buried in a mountain of
code text. I don't know if this is JIRA, Github, or some unholy union
of the two?
5. I find the Github commenting UI confusing -- what is the difference
between conversation and review comments? How can I reply to a
comment?  What if I want to batch up a bunch of replies and send one
email with all of them? Maybe it's just me, but I haven't found
comfort with this yet.
6. Github is owned by a corporation. I assume we'd have enough legal
protections to take our data with us if we need to, but it is possibly
an extra hurdle to be concerned about. Would we need to / want to
maintain a separate copy of the issue history?
7. What would happen with the JIRA history? Would we import it to
Github issues? Leave it archived in JIRA?

On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 10:24 PM Tomoko Uchida
 wrote:
>
> Hello everyone!
>
> Recently, we relaxed the requirement for creating a Jira issue when opening a 
> pull request (LUCENE-10545).
>
> As the next and bigger (perhaps ambitious) step, I opened a rough proposal 
> for migration to GitHub issue from Jira.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
>
> According to the INFRA issue for the RocketMQ project (Michael McCandless 
> gave the pointer in a comment on the issue; thanks!), a PMC agreement or Vote 
> result is needed for the decision.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15702
>
> Eventually, we'd need a formal vote, but before that, I'd like to hear 
> general opinions/thoughts (or feelings) on this topic from developers.
>
> In brief, I think it'd be technically possible and also be good for the 
> project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not familiar with 
> Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term contributors by 
> consolidating the conversation platform.
> It'll need some administrative work though, I'm willing to work for it if we 
> reach an agreement.
>
> Please note that:
> * This is not a VOTE. Simple vote-style feedback (+/- 1) is welcome, but we 
> don't aim to reach a conclusion in this thread.
> * Let's not discuss "how to migrate existing Jira issues" for now. Once we 
> decide the migration will be good for us, then we can try to figure out a 
> reasonable solution for technical/administrative matters.
>
> I may be too optimistic about it; but - a bit of stupidness will be needed to 
> start such a move, and I'm serious about this proposal :)
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Tomoko

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] A proposal for migration to GitHub issue (LUCENE-10557)

[Robert Muir]

On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 10:24 PM Tomoko Uchida
 wrote:
>
> According to the INFRA issue for the RocketMQ project (Michael McCandless 
> gave the pointer in a comment on the issue; thanks!), a PMC agreement or Vote 
> result is needed for the decision.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15702
>
> Eventually, we'd need a formal vote, but before that, I'd like to hear 
> general opinions/thoughts (or feelings) on this topic from developers.
>

Thanks for opening the discussion! The original motivation for the
INFRA issue linked above is interesting to me. I didn't know
contributors from China struggled to access Apache JIRA.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org