Re: [DISCUSS] Read-only Jira after the GitHub issues migration?

[Gus Heck]

I am 100% for preventing creation of new issues in Jira, new issues should
only be created in one system at any one time. I feel that existing issues
should be completed in their original system for continuity, and
anticipate that in any case Jira will mean readable in perpetuity. The
copying of old issues to github as a convenience for users so they aren't
forced to look at 2 places also sounds good. Raising the standard for what
we consider a stale issue and closing out things in Jira faster to get to a
one system situation sooner also seems good.

Things I think we should strive to avoid:
1) An issue in Jira that is unresolved and duplicated (possibly resolved)
in github... possibly leading to someone wasting time repeating a solution
or giving up thinking there isn't a solution etc.
2) Any issues for which the discussion is split across systems and thus it
would be easy to miss part of the discussion and/or not have the issue come
up in searches that are relevant to that issue.

Also, a common pattern for me is to throw an issue ticket number that I
have noted somewhere (i.e LUCENE-12345) into google and browse to the
ticket if it comes up directly or to a mail archive result which has a link
to the Jira. This is faster than searching in jira itself because I can
always get to google in a single keystroke (new tab).  Sadly this is
unlikely to work with github which does not put a project moniker on the
issue id. Not sure how many others do this but if it's common I wonder if
we can auto-insert something of the sort into github tickets so that mail
archives from the tickets are similarly searchable? Like LUCENE-G12345 for
github ticket #12345? The two key things that make this useful are the
searchability of the ID in google and the fact that ticket mails often have
a link to the ticket which the archive sites will render as a hyperlink.

-Gus

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 11:12 AM David Smiley  wrote:

> I suppose someone bent on not using GitHub could also email the patch to
> the dev list, starting a thread around it.
>
> ~ David Smiley
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 9:14 AM Michael McCandless <
> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Team,
>>
>> Thanks to Tomoko's amazing hard work (
>> https://github.com/apache/lucene-jira-archive), we are getting close to
>> having strong tooling and a solid plan to migrate all past Jira issues to
>> GItHub issues!
>>
>> But one contentious point is whether to leave Jira read-only or
>> read-write after the migration.  So let's DISCUSS and maybe VOTE to reach
>> concensus?
>>
>> My opinion: I think it'd be crazy to leave Jira read/write.  We would
>> effectively have two issue trackers.  New users who find Jira through
>> Google, or through links we have in old blog posts, etc., might
>> accidentally open new Jira issues or comment on old ones and we may not
>> even notice.  I think that would harm our community.
>>
>> I would prefer that we make a nearly atomic switch -- up until time X we
>> use Jira, then it goes read-only and at time X + t (t being how long the
>> migration takes, likely a day or two?), GitHub issues opens for business.
>> This way we clarly have only one issue tracker at (nearly) all times.  This
>> would make a clean migration, and reduce risk of trapping users.
>>
>> Other opinions?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mike
>> --
>> Mike McCandless
>>
>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>
>

-- 
http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work)
http://www.the111shift.com (play)

Re: [DISCUSS] Read-only Jira after the GitHub issues migration?

[David Smiley]

I suppose someone bent on not using GitHub could also email the patch to
the dev list, starting a thread around it.

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


On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 9:14 AM Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:

> Hi Team,
>
> Thanks to Tomoko's amazing hard work (
> https://github.com/apache/lucene-jira-archive), we are getting close to
> having strong tooling and a solid plan to migrate all past Jira issues to
> GItHub issues!
>
> But one contentious point is whether to leave Jira read-only or read-write
> after the migration.  So let's DISCUSS and maybe VOTE to reach concensus?
>
> My opinion: I think it'd be crazy to leave Jira read/write.  We would
> effectively have two issue trackers.  New users who find Jira through
> Google, or through links we have in old blog posts, etc., might
> accidentally open new Jira issues or comment on old ones and we may not
> even notice.  I think that would harm our community.
>
> I would prefer that we make a nearly atomic switch -- up until time X we
> use Jira, then it goes read-only and at time X + t (t being how long the
> migration takes, likely a day or two?), GitHub issues opens for business.
> This way we clarly have only one issue tracker at (nearly) all times.  This
> would make a clean migration, and reduce risk of trapping users.
>
> Other opinions?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
> --
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>

Re: Lucene 9.3.0 release

[Ignacio Vera]

Just a quick reminder I plan to cut the 9.3 branch this Wednesday at 9:00
CEST. Let me know if there is any issue.

@Mike: I see that LUCENE-10577
 is still under API
discussions, Do you think it will make it to the release? LUCENE-10592
  seems to have made
good progress, would you think it will be ready?
@Nick: I gave you feedback on the PR. I think it is way too risky to add an
encoding in a rush. I recommend adding the change in the sandbox if you
want to iterate in there or wait for another release where there is more
time to think through the encoding.

Cheers,

Ignacio

On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 2:09 AM Nicholas Knize  wrote:

> I'd like to get ShapeDocValuesField in for the 9.3 release (
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10654). It's a nice feature
> for enabling facets and aggregations over XYShape and LatLonShape field
> types and could make for a good 9.3 geo highlight.
>
> Nicholas Knize, Ph.D., GISP
> Principal Engineer - Search  |  Amazon
> Apache Lucene PMC Member and Committer
> nkn...@apache.org
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 2:50 PM Ignacio Vera  wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the heads up, I am planning to cut the brunch middle next
>> week, Wednesday July 20th.
>> Let me know at the beginning of next week if there is any issue from your
>> side.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Ignacio
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 4:21 PM Michael Sokolov 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to see if we can get
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10577 in. It is working
>>> and gives nice gains, but there is some controversy about the API. If
>>> we can't get it sorted out this week(?) it can certainly slip to the
>>> next revision. I know that
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10592 is also baking and
>>> has a PR that seems to be progressing rapidly.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 10:03 AM Ignacio Vera  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hello!
>>> >
>>> > Lucene 9.2.0 was released around 2 months ago and we are accumulating
>>> a good bunch of new features, optimizations and bug fixes. Would there be
>>> support for releasing Lucene 9.3 soon?
>>> >
>>> > I am happy being the release manager. I did not see any issues marked
>>> "blocker", but please let me know if there are any.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> >
>>> >  Ignacio
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Read-only Jira after the GitHub issues migration?

[Tomoko Uchida]

I see. If we forbid people from updating Jira, I hope we will keep dealing
with .patch files (maybe renamed to .patch.txt or -patch.txt) as
before.
I don't want to interfere with the development style of people who prefer
classical/standard patch files over pull requests.

Except for the treatment of .patch files, I don't see any essential
difference between Jira and GitHub issues so far.
For people who don't use GitHub not because of functionality but because of
their policy, I cannot much help. In that case, just blame me - it's a
project I started.


2022年7月18日(月) 19:32 Michael McCandless :

> Indeed, GitHub forbids you from attaching a file with extension .patch!
> Sort of annoying :)
>
> But then one workaround is to rename it to -patch.txt or so.  Of
> course, GitHub won't do pretty rendering of the .patch syntax, but then I
> don't think Jira does either?  It's just an attachment that you must
> download and apply to your local git clone.
>
> GitHub does support mapping a PR to a patch or diff file -- you just
> download the full path to the PR, but add .diff or .patch extension.  E.g.
> https://github.com/apache/lucene-jira-archive/pull/49.patch or
> https://github.com/apache/lucene-jira-archive/pull/49.diff.
>
> The .diff is a straight diff (like "git diff") of all the cumulative
> changes/commits in the PR, while the .patch shows a concatenation of the
> individual commits.
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 12:41 AM Tomoko Uchida <
> tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree that "discussion" will be done on mailing lists (as always).
>> Properly speaking, stopping using Jira means "we don't accept patch style
>> contributions anymore".
>> GitHub doesn't allow ".patch" files as attachments; it'd be reasonable
>> for GitHub.
>>
>> https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/writing-on-github/working-with-advanced-formatting/attaching-files
>>
>> I'm not sure if it has a substantial effect and I myself am fine with
>> that - just wanted to clarify what we are going to discard.
>>
>> Tomoko
>>
>>
>> 2022年7月17日(日) 23:40 Michael Sokolov :
>>
>>> I think we'd still have the mailing lists open for discussion. So anyone
>>> not willing or able to use GitHub would still be able to participate in a
>>> meaningful way. Having two parallel bug trackers seems much less useful to
>>> me. I'd rather have people emailing to a list that is active rather than
>>> posting comments to a repository that we may very likely start to ignore.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 10:09 AM Tomoko Uchida <
>>> tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Thank you Mike for opening the discussion.

 I don't really have a clear "opinion" on that, but I just wanted to try
 to explain my perspective.

 Today almost all development is already going on GitHub pull requests,
 then it would be a natural direction for the majority of devs to move our
 primary conversation platform to GitHub. I think we should try to optimize
 our environment for majorities, although I know we will never be able to
 reach a unanimous agreement.
 Meanwhile, it was not my intention to completely discontinue the
 contribution path via Jira. I rather optimistically thought we could leave
 room for developers who don't use GitHub for any reason.

 As for preventing someone from "accidentally" opening Jira issues, we
 could show a text that says "Jira has been deprecated. Please open GitHub
 issue unless you are not able to do so." when he/she is attempting to open
 Jira.

 https://confluence.atlassian.com/adminjiraserver/configuring-contexts-and-default-values-for-the-description-field-1047552727.html

 I agree that it'd be the cleanest way to make Jira read-only and I
 myself am fine with the proposal - maybe I'm overthinking.

 Tomoko


 2022年7月17日(日) 22:13 Michael McCandless :

> Hi Team,
>
> Thanks to Tomoko's amazing hard work (
> https://github.com/apache/lucene-jira-archive), we are getting close
> to having strong tooling and a solid plan to migrate all past Jira issues
> to GItHub issues!
>
> But one contentious point is whether to leave Jira read-only or
> read-write after the migration.  So let's DISCUSS and maybe VOTE to reach
> concensus?
>
> My opinion: I think it'd be crazy to leave Jira read/write.  We would
> effectively have two issue trackers.  New users who find Jira through
> Google, or through links we have in old blog posts, etc., might
> accidentally open new Jira issues or comment on old ones and we may not
> even notice.  I think that would harm our community.
>
> I would prefer that we make a nearly atomic switch -- up until time X
> we use Jira, then it goes read-only and at time X + t (t being how long 
> the
> migration takes, likely a day or two?), GitHub issues opens for 

Re: [DISCUSS] Read-only Jira after the GitHub issues migration?

[Michael McCandless]

Indeed, GitHub forbids you from attaching a file with extension .patch!
Sort of annoying :)

But then one workaround is to rename it to -patch.txt or so.  Of
course, GitHub won't do pretty rendering of the .patch syntax, but then I
don't think Jira does either?  It's just an attachment that you must
download and apply to your local git clone.

GitHub does support mapping a PR to a patch or diff file -- you just
download the full path to the PR, but add .diff or .patch extension.  E.g.
https://github.com/apache/lucene-jira-archive/pull/49.patch or
https://github.com/apache/lucene-jira-archive/pull/49.diff.

The .diff is a straight diff (like "git diff") of all the cumulative
changes/commits in the PR, while the .patch shows a concatenation of the
individual commits.

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com


On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 12:41 AM Tomoko Uchida 
wrote:

> I agree that "discussion" will be done on mailing lists (as always).
> Properly speaking, stopping using Jira means "we don't accept patch style
> contributions anymore".
> GitHub doesn't allow ".patch" files as attachments; it'd be reasonable for
> GitHub.
>
> https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/writing-on-github/working-with-advanced-formatting/attaching-files
>
> I'm not sure if it has a substantial effect and I myself am fine with that
> - just wanted to clarify what we are going to discard.
>
> Tomoko
>
>
> 2022年7月17日(日) 23:40 Michael Sokolov :
>
>> I think we'd still have the mailing lists open for discussion. So anyone
>> not willing or able to use GitHub would still be able to participate in a
>> meaningful way. Having two parallel bug trackers seems much less useful to
>> me. I'd rather have people emailing to a list that is active rather than
>> posting comments to a repository that we may very likely start to ignore.
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 10:09 AM Tomoko Uchida <
>> tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you Mike for opening the discussion.
>>>
>>> I don't really have a clear "opinion" on that, but I just wanted to try
>>> to explain my perspective.
>>>
>>> Today almost all development is already going on GitHub pull requests,
>>> then it would be a natural direction for the majority of devs to move our
>>> primary conversation platform to GitHub. I think we should try to optimize
>>> our environment for majorities, although I know we will never be able to
>>> reach a unanimous agreement.
>>> Meanwhile, it was not my intention to completely discontinue the
>>> contribution path via Jira. I rather optimistically thought we could leave
>>> room for developers who don't use GitHub for any reason.
>>>
>>> As for preventing someone from "accidentally" opening Jira issues, we
>>> could show a text that says "Jira has been deprecated. Please open GitHub
>>> issue unless you are not able to do so." when he/she is attempting to open
>>> Jira.
>>>
>>> https://confluence.atlassian.com/adminjiraserver/configuring-contexts-and-default-values-for-the-description-field-1047552727.html
>>>
>>> I agree that it'd be the cleanest way to make Jira read-only and I
>>> myself am fine with the proposal - maybe I'm overthinking.
>>>
>>> Tomoko
>>>
>>>
>>> 2022年7月17日(日) 22:13 Michael McCandless :
>>>
 Hi Team,

 Thanks to Tomoko's amazing hard work (
 https://github.com/apache/lucene-jira-archive), we are getting close
 to having strong tooling and a solid plan to migrate all past Jira issues
 to GItHub issues!

 But one contentious point is whether to leave Jira read-only or
 read-write after the migration.  So let's DISCUSS and maybe VOTE to reach
 concensus?

 My opinion: I think it'd be crazy to leave Jira read/write.  We would
 effectively have two issue trackers.  New users who find Jira through
 Google, or through links we have in old blog posts, etc., might
 accidentally open new Jira issues or comment on old ones and we may not
 even notice.  I think that would harm our community.

 I would prefer that we make a nearly atomic switch -- up until time X
 we use Jira, then it goes read-only and at time X + t (t being how long the
 migration takes, likely a day or two?), GitHub issues opens for business.
 This way we clarly have only one issue tracker at (nearly) all times.  This
 would make a clean migration, and reduce risk of trapping users.

 Other opinions?

 Thanks,

 Mike
 --
 Mike McCandless

 http://blog.mikemccandless.com

>>>