[DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
35 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

Mike Walch-2
I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial period,
the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using
Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

Josh Elser-2
-0 as an initial reaction because I'm still not convinced that GH issues
provides any additional features or better experience than JIRA does,
and this change would only serve to fragment an already bare community.

My concerns that would push that -0 to a -1 include (but aren't limited to):

* Documentation/website update for the release process
* Validation that our release processes on JIRA has similar
functionality on GH issues
* Updated contributor docs (removing JIRA related content, add an
explanation as to the change)
* CONTRIBUTING.md updated on relevant repos

- Josh

On 2/15/18 12:05 PM, Mike Walch wrote:
> I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
> GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial period,
> the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using
> Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

Christopher Tubbs-2
In reply to this post by Mike Walch-2
+1 for a trial... because we shouldn't be afraid to experiment with our
workflows. I also like working on GH, and want to see if it will result in
a valuable change or not for Accumulo, and if it is, I'd like to switch to
it at some point (I like the trial first, because I don't know if there
will be unforeseen problems).

Additionally, I think that:
  GH issue tracker could potentially lower the bar to reporting issues
since many devs use GitHub already.
  It would allow integration/exposure via external initiatives, like
Hacktoberfest by using GH labels.
  It could improve readability of commit logs by avoiding lengthy links to
JIRA issue numbers.
  No need to create an issue for the sole purpose of "checking the box" to
have an issue to mention in the log (since PRs are issues).
  It would improve linking between PRs and issues.
  Markdown in GH is much more friendly than JIRA's syntax.
  Reduced mailing list spam from redundant emails and integration with JIRA.
  JIRA is frequently offline for maintenance.

Some potential downsides:
  Lack of multiple milestones for an issue (there are workarounds)
  Lack of batch issue changes
  Change in momentum could be confusing to contributors

I think a trial period could help us understand whether the potential
downsides are worse than the benefits, and whether or not we can develop
workflows that mitigate against those downsides.

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Mike Walch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
> GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial period,
> the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using
> Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

Mike Drob-4
Before switching to GitHub issues, I would like somebody to do an
investigation into why Apache Spark isn't using them. They are heavy heavy
heavy users of PRs, but don't use issues and I'd like to see if they've
already done the leg-work on figuring this out.

Not saying that we need to be like Spark in every way, but it's a community
that may have already gone down this path.

Mike

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 for a trial... because we shouldn't be afraid to experiment with our
> workflows. I also like working on GH, and want to see if it will result in
> a valuable change or not for Accumulo, and if it is, I'd like to switch to
> it at some point (I like the trial first, because I don't know if there
> will be unforeseen problems).
>
> Additionally, I think that:
>   GH issue tracker could potentially lower the bar to reporting issues
> since many devs use GitHub already.
>   It would allow integration/exposure via external initiatives, like
> Hacktoberfest by using GH labels.
>   It could improve readability of commit logs by avoiding lengthy links to
> JIRA issue numbers.
>   No need to create an issue for the sole purpose of "checking the box" to
> have an issue to mention in the log (since PRs are issues).
>   It would improve linking between PRs and issues.
>   Markdown in GH is much more friendly than JIRA's syntax.
>   Reduced mailing list spam from redundant emails and integration with
> JIRA.
>   JIRA is frequently offline for maintenance.
>
> Some potential downsides:
>   Lack of multiple milestones for an issue (there are workarounds)
>   Lack of batch issue changes
>   Change in momentum could be confusing to contributors
>
> I think a trial period could help us understand whether the potential
> downsides are worse than the benefits, and whether or not we can develop
> workflows that mitigate against those downsides.
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Mike Walch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
> > GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial
> period,
> > the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using
> > Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

Christopher Tubbs-2
While I think Spark's reasons might be interesting, I find it hard to
believe that any reason they might have would be so compelling as to
prevent us from even performing a trial. I think should still experiment
with GH issues, as a trial, regardless of what additional input we might
get from other-than-hands-on experience during that trial.

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:17 PM Mike Drob <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Before switching to GitHub issues, I would like somebody to do an
> investigation into why Apache Spark isn't using them. They are heavy heavy
> heavy users of PRs, but don't use issues and I'd like to see if they've
> already done the leg-work on figuring this out.
>
> Not saying that we need to be like Spark in every way, but it's a community
> that may have already gone down this path.
>
> Mike
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > +1 for a trial... because we shouldn't be afraid to experiment with our
> > workflows. I also like working on GH, and want to see if it will result
> in
> > a valuable change or not for Accumulo, and if it is, I'd like to switch
> to
> > it at some point (I like the trial first, because I don't know if there
> > will be unforeseen problems).
> >
> > Additionally, I think that:
> >   GH issue tracker could potentially lower the bar to reporting issues
> > since many devs use GitHub already.
> >   It would allow integration/exposure via external initiatives, like
> > Hacktoberfest by using GH labels.
> >   It could improve readability of commit logs by avoiding lengthy links
> to
> > JIRA issue numbers.
> >   No need to create an issue for the sole purpose of "checking the box"
> to
> > have an issue to mention in the log (since PRs are issues).
> >   It would improve linking between PRs and issues.
> >   Markdown in GH is much more friendly than JIRA's syntax.
> >   Reduced mailing list spam from redundant emails and integration with
> > JIRA.
> >   JIRA is frequently offline for maintenance.
> >
> > Some potential downsides:
> >   Lack of multiple milestones for an issue (there are workarounds)
> >   Lack of batch issue changes
> >   Change in momentum could be confusing to contributors
> >
> > I think a trial period could help us understand whether the potential
> > downsides are worse than the benefits, and whether or not we can develop
> > workflows that mitigate against those downsides.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Mike Walch <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
> > > GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial
> > period,
> > > the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using
> > > Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

Nicholas G. Felts
In reply to this post by Christopher Tubbs-2
+1 for a trial

I'm fairly new. I've been here for less than six months, and Accumulo is my only experience with open-source development. I'm for consolidating tools where possible. It's easier to receive feedback on pull requests via Github, so that's where I've engaged in discussions. For me, Jira has been a glorified tool for naming branches.

________________________________________
From: Christopher [[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 1:12 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

+1 for a trial... because we shouldn't be afraid to experiment with our
workflows. I also like working on GH, and want to see if it will result in
a valuable change or not for Accumulo, and if it is, I'd like to switch to
it at some point (I like the trial first, because I don't know if there
will be unforeseen problems).

Additionally, I think that:
  GH issue tracker could potentially lower the bar to reporting issues
since many devs use GitHub already.
  It would allow integration/exposure via external initiatives, like
Hacktoberfest by using GH labels.
  It could improve readability of commit logs by avoiding lengthy links to
JIRA issue numbers.
  No need to create an issue for the sole purpose of "checking the box" to
have an issue to mention in the log (since PRs are issues).
  It would improve linking between PRs and issues.
  Markdown in GH is much more friendly than JIRA's syntax.
  Reduced mailing list spam from redundant emails and integration with JIRA.
  JIRA is frequently offline for maintenance.

Some potential downsides:
  Lack of multiple milestones for an issue (there are workarounds)
  Lack of batch issue changes
  Change in momentum could be confusing to contributors

I think a trial period could help us understand whether the potential
downsides are worse than the benefits, and whether or not we can develop
workflows that mitigate against those downsides.

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Mike Walch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
> GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial period,
> the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using
> Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

Mike Miller-2
+1 for a trial

Simply having the issue tracker on a tab next to the Code and PRs is enough
for me to switch, regardless of any issue tracking tool features.

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Nicholas G. Felts <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> +1 for a trial
>
> I'm fairly new. I've been here for less than six months, and Accumulo is
> my only experience with open-source development. I'm for consolidating
> tools where possible. It's easier to receive feedback on pull requests via
> Github, so that's where I've engaged in discussions. For me, Jira has been
> a glorified tool for naming branches.
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Christopher [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 1:12 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
>
> +1 for a trial... because we shouldn't be afraid to experiment with our
> workflows. I also like working on GH, and want to see if it will result in
> a valuable change or not for Accumulo, and if it is, I'd like to switch to
> it at some point (I like the trial first, because I don't know if there
> will be unforeseen problems).
>
> Additionally, I think that:
>   GH issue tracker could potentially lower the bar to reporting issues
> since many devs use GitHub already.
>   It would allow integration/exposure via external initiatives, like
> Hacktoberfest by using GH labels.
>   It could improve readability of commit logs by avoiding lengthy links to
> JIRA issue numbers.
>   No need to create an issue for the sole purpose of "checking the box" to
> have an issue to mention in the log (since PRs are issues).
>   It would improve linking between PRs and issues.
>   Markdown in GH is much more friendly than JIRA's syntax.
>   Reduced mailing list spam from redundant emails and integration with
> JIRA.
>   JIRA is frequently offline for maintenance.
>
> Some potential downsides:
>   Lack of multiple milestones for an issue (there are workarounds)
>   Lack of batch issue changes
>   Change in momentum could be confusing to contributors
>
> I think a trial period could help us understand whether the potential
> downsides are worse than the benefits, and whether or not we can develop
> workflows that mitigate against those downsides.
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Mike Walch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
> > GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial
> period,
> > the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using
> > Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

Mike Drob-4
In reply to this post by Christopher Tubbs-2
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> While I think Spark's reasons might be interesting, I find it hard to
> believe that any reason they might have would be so compelling as to
> prevent us from even performing a trial. I think should still experiment
> with GH issues, as a trial, regardless of what additional input we might
> get from other-than-hands-on experience during that trial.
>
> I can think of several.

Let's not assume that we have ASF policy blessing to do this. Somebody
should research that. Or tell me that they've already researched it. It's
likely ok, but I don't want to do dive headfirst into something stupid.

What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration plan
for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.

And this part is a little glib, but what would be a sign to the community
that Apache is not the right fit for Accumulo? There are countless
successful open source projects using GitHub as the canonical repo
(complete with CI, issues, wiki, and site). Projects can use Google groups
for mailing lists when necessary instead of ASF lists. I see a slow trickle
in the Accumulo community that some given self-service option is better
than the equivalent provided by ASF Infra. Sure, there's lots of
alternatives out there for much of the tooling, but I like the convenience
of having it handled for me. Some people can disagree here, and that's ok.

Anyway, please please address my first two point, and at least consider the
third. Not necessarily you, Christopher; open question to the proponents.

Mike



> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:17 PM Mike Drob <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Before switching to GitHub issues, I would like somebody to do an
> > investigation into why Apache Spark isn't using them. They are heavy
> heavy
> > heavy users of PRs, but don't use issues and I'd like to see if they've
> > already done the leg-work on figuring this out.
> >
> > Not saying that we need to be like Spark in every way, but it's a
> community
> > that may have already gone down this path.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Christopher <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for a trial... because we shouldn't be afraid to experiment with our
> > > workflows. I also like working on GH, and want to see if it will result
> > in
> > > a valuable change or not for Accumulo, and if it is, I'd like to switch
> > to
> > > it at some point (I like the trial first, because I don't know if there
> > > will be unforeseen problems).
> > >
> > > Additionally, I think that:
> > >   GH issue tracker could potentially lower the bar to reporting issues
> > > since many devs use GitHub already.
> > >   It would allow integration/exposure via external initiatives, like
> > > Hacktoberfest by using GH labels.
> > >   It could improve readability of commit logs by avoiding lengthy links
> > to
> > > JIRA issue numbers.
> > >   No need to create an issue for the sole purpose of "checking the box"
> > to
> > > have an issue to mention in the log (since PRs are issues).
> > >   It would improve linking between PRs and issues.
> > >   Markdown in GH is much more friendly than JIRA's syntax.
> > >   Reduced mailing list spam from redundant emails and integration with
> > > JIRA.
> > >   JIRA is frequently offline for maintenance.
> > >
> > > Some potential downsides:
> > >   Lack of multiple milestones for an issue (there are workarounds)
> > >   Lack of batch issue changes
> > >   Change in momentum could be confusing to contributors
> > >
> > > I think a trial period could help us understand whether the potential
> > > downsides are worse than the benefits, and whether or not we can
> develop
> > > workflows that mitigate against those downsides.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Mike Walch <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
> > > > GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial
> > > period,
> > > > the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep
> using
> > > > Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

Christopher Tubbs-2
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 2:55 PM Mike Drob <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > While I think Spark's reasons might be interesting, I find it hard to
> > believe that any reason they might have would be so compelling as to
> > prevent us from even performing a trial. I think should still experiment
> > with GH issues, as a trial, regardless of what additional input we might
> > get from other-than-hands-on experience during that trial.
> >
> > I can think of several.
>
> Let's not assume that we have ASF policy blessing to do this. Somebody
> should research that. Or tell me that they've already researched it. It's
> likely ok, but I don't want to do dive headfirst into something stupid.
>
>
GH issues are supported by INFRA.


> What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration plan
> for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
>
>
As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all the answers up
front.


> And this part is a little glib, but what would be a sign to the community
> that Apache is not the right fit for Accumulo? There are countless
> successful open source projects using GitHub as the canonical repo
> (complete with CI, issues, wiki, and site). Projects can use Google groups
> for mailing lists when necessary instead of ASF lists. I see a slow trickle
> in the Accumulo community that some given self-service option is better
> than the equivalent provided by ASF Infra. Sure, there's lots of
> alternatives out there for much of the tooling, but I like the convenience
> of having it handled for me. Some people can disagree here, and that's ok.
>
>
Both issue trackers are supported by ASF INFRA.


> Anyway, please please address my first two point, and at least consider the
> third. Not necessarily you, Christopher; open question to the proponents.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:17 PM Mike Drob <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Before switching to GitHub issues, I would like somebody to do an
> > > investigation into why Apache Spark isn't using them. They are heavy
> > heavy
> > > heavy users of PRs, but don't use issues and I'd like to see if they've
> > > already done the leg-work on figuring this out.
> > >
> > > Not saying that we need to be like Spark in every way, but it's a
> > community
> > > that may have already gone down this path.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Christopher <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for a trial... because we shouldn't be afraid to experiment with
> our
> > > > workflows. I also like working on GH, and want to see if it will
> result
> > > in
> > > > a valuable change or not for Accumulo, and if it is, I'd like to
> switch
> > > to
> > > > it at some point (I like the trial first, because I don't know if
> there
> > > > will be unforeseen problems).
> > > >
> > > > Additionally, I think that:
> > > >   GH issue tracker could potentially lower the bar to reporting
> issues
> > > > since many devs use GitHub already.
> > > >   It would allow integration/exposure via external initiatives, like
> > > > Hacktoberfest by using GH labels.
> > > >   It could improve readability of commit logs by avoiding lengthy
> links
> > > to
> > > > JIRA issue numbers.
> > > >   No need to create an issue for the sole purpose of "checking the
> box"
> > > to
> > > > have an issue to mention in the log (since PRs are issues).
> > > >   It would improve linking between PRs and issues.
> > > >   Markdown in GH is much more friendly than JIRA's syntax.
> > > >   Reduced mailing list spam from redundant emails and integration
> with
> > > > JIRA.
> > > >   JIRA is frequently offline for maintenance.
> > > >
> > > > Some potential downsides:
> > > >   Lack of multiple milestones for an issue (there are workarounds)
> > > >   Lack of batch issue changes
> > > >   Change in momentum could be confusing to contributors
> > > >
> > > > I think a trial period could help us understand whether the potential
> > > > downsides are worse than the benefits, and whether or not we can
> > develop
> > > > workflows that mitigate against those downsides.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Mike Walch <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub
> issues.
> > > > > GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial
> > > > period,
> > > > > the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep
> > using
> > > > > Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

Mike Drob-4
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 3:05 PM, Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 2:55 PM Mike Drob <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Christopher <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > While I think Spark's reasons might be interesting, I find it hard to
> > > believe that any reason they might have would be so compelling as to
> > > prevent us from even performing a trial. I think should still
> experiment
> > > with GH issues, as a trial, regardless of what additional input we
> might
> > > get from other-than-hands-on experience during that trial.
> > >
> > > I can think of several.
> >
> > Let's not assume that we have ASF policy blessing to do this. Somebody
> > should research that. Or tell me that they've already researched it. It's
> > likely ok, but I don't want to do dive headfirst into something stupid.
> >
> >
> GH issues are supported by INFRA.
>
> Cool, that gives me more confidence in our ability to succeed.

>
> > What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration
> plan
> > for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
> >
> >
> As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all the answers up
> front.
>

You're right, we don't need to have all of the answers up front.
This is one that I'd like to have some thought put into though.

There's lots of things that are fine to handle as we approach it, but this
one seems like it will lead to us having split issue trackers for _years_
down the road.

>
> > And this part is a little glib, but what would be a sign to the community
> > that Apache is not the right fit for Accumulo? There are countless
> > successful open source projects using GitHub as the canonical repo
> > (complete with CI, issues, wiki, and site). Projects can use Google
> groups
> > for mailing lists when necessary instead of ASF lists. I see a slow
> trickle
> > in the Accumulo community that some given self-service option is better
> > than the equivalent provided by ASF Infra. Sure, there's lots of
> > alternatives out there for much of the tooling, but I like the
> convenience
> > of having it handled for me. Some people can disagree here, and that's
> ok.
> >
> >
> Both issue trackers are supported by ASF INFRA.
>
>
> > Anyway, please please address my first two point, and at least consider
> the
> > third. Not necessarily you, Christopher; open question to the proponents.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:17 PM Mike Drob <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Before switching to GitHub issues, I would like somebody to do an
> > > > investigation into why Apache Spark isn't using them. They are heavy
> > > heavy
> > > > heavy users of PRs, but don't use issues and I'd like to see if
> they've
> > > > already done the leg-work on figuring this out.
> > > >
> > > > Not saying that we need to be like Spark in every way, but it's a
> > > community
> > > > that may have already gone down this path.
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Christopher <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 for a trial... because we shouldn't be afraid to experiment with
> > our
> > > > > workflows. I also like working on GH, and want to see if it will
> > result
> > > > in
> > > > > a valuable change or not for Accumulo, and if it is, I'd like to
> > switch
> > > > to
> > > > > it at some point (I like the trial first, because I don't know if
> > there
> > > > > will be unforeseen problems).
> > > > >
> > > > > Additionally, I think that:
> > > > >   GH issue tracker could potentially lower the bar to reporting
> > issues
> > > > > since many devs use GitHub already.
> > > > >   It would allow integration/exposure via external initiatives,
> like
> > > > > Hacktoberfest by using GH labels.
> > > > >   It could improve readability of commit logs by avoiding lengthy
> > links
> > > > to
> > > > > JIRA issue numbers.
> > > > >   No need to create an issue for the sole purpose of "checking the
> > box"
> > > > to
> > > > > have an issue to mention in the log (since PRs are issues).
> > > > >   It would improve linking between PRs and issues.
> > > > >   Markdown in GH is much more friendly than JIRA's syntax.
> > > > >   Reduced mailing list spam from redundant emails and integration
> > with
> > > > > JIRA.
> > > > >   JIRA is frequently offline for maintenance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some potential downsides:
> > > > >   Lack of multiple milestones for an issue (there are workarounds)
> > > > >   Lack of batch issue changes
> > > > >   Change in momentum could be confusing to contributors
> > > > >
> > > > > I think a trial period could help us understand whether the
> potential
> > > > > downsides are worse than the benefits, and whether or not we can
> > > develop
> > > > > workflows that mitigate against those downsides.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Mike Walch <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub
> > issues.
> > > > > > GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this
> trial
> > > > > period,
> > > > > > the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep
> > > using
> > > > > > Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

Josh Elser-2
On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:

>>> What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration
>> plan
>>> for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
>>>
>>>
>> As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all the answers up
>> front.
>>
> You're right, we don't need to have all of the answers up front.
> This is one that I'd like to have some thought put into though.
>
> There's lots of things that are fine to handle as we approach it, but this
> one seems like it will lead to us having split issue trackers for_years_
> down the road.
>

This is a good point I hadn't yet considered.

There's not only the migration question that eventually needs to be
answered, but an immediate question of how will we determine when we can
release a version of Accumulo? Are there conventions/features on the GH
issues side that will provide some logical analog to the fixVersion of JIRA?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

Christopher Tubbs-2
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:55 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> >>> What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration
> >> plan
> >>> for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all the
> answers up
> >> front.
> >>
> > You're right, we don't need to have all of the answers up front.
> > This is one that I'd like to have some thought put into though.
> >
> > There's lots of things that are fine to handle as we approach it, but
> this
> > one seems like it will lead to us having split issue trackers for_years_
> > down the road.
> >
>
> This is a good point I hadn't yet considered.
>
> There's not only the migration question that eventually needs to be
> answered, but an immediate question of how will we determine when we can
> release a version of Accumulo? Are there conventions/features on the GH
> issues side that will provide some logical analog to the fixVersion of
> JIRA?
>

These are all great questions... that could be answered with a trial...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

Josh Elser-2
On 2/15/18 4:56 PM, Christopher wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:55 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
>>>>> What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration
>>>> plan
>>>>> for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all the
>> answers up
>>>> front.
>>>>
>>> You're right, we don't need to have all of the answers up front.
>>> This is one that I'd like to have some thought put into though.
>>>
>>> There's lots of things that are fine to handle as we approach it, but
>> this
>>> one seems like it will lead to us having split issue trackers for_years_
>>> down the road.
>>>
>>
>> This is a good point I hadn't yet considered.
>>
>> There's not only the migration question that eventually needs to be
>> answered, but an immediate question of how will we determine when we can
>> release a version of Accumulo? Are there conventions/features on the GH
>> issues side that will provide some logical analog to the fixVersion of
>> JIRA?
>>
>
> These are all great questions... that could be answered with a trial...
>

Shall I assume then that you are volunteering to handle all issue
management across the disparate systems for all releases?

A trial is a good idea to determine _if we like the system_ and want to
migrate to it. It's not a substitute for determining if the system is
_viable_.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

Christopher Tubbs-2
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:08 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2/15/18 4:56 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:55 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> >>>>> What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration
> >>>> plan
> >>>>> for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all the
> >> answers up
> >>>> front.
> >>>>
> >>> You're right, we don't need to have all of the answers up front.
> >>> This is one that I'd like to have some thought put into though.
> >>>
> >>> There's lots of things that are fine to handle as we approach it, but
> >> this
> >>> one seems like it will lead to us having split issue trackers
> for_years_
> >>> down the road.
> >>>
> >>
> >> This is a good point I hadn't yet considered.
> >>
> >> There's not only the migration question that eventually needs to be
> >> answered, but an immediate question of how will we determine when we can
> >> release a version of Accumulo? Are there conventions/features on the GH
> >> issues side that will provide some logical analog to the fixVersion of
> >> JIRA?
> >>
> >
> > These are all great questions... that could be answered with a trial...
> >
>
> Shall I assume then that you are volunteering to handle all issue
> management across the disparate systems for all releases?
>
> A trial is a good idea to determine _if we like the system_ and want to
> migrate to it. It's not a substitute for determining if the system is
> _viable_.
>

I'm of a different opinion: I already know I like GitHub issues and want to
migrate to it. What I don't know is if it is viable for Accumulo's needs.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

Josh Elser-2
On 2/15/18 6:18 PM, Christopher wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:08 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/18 4:56 PM, Christopher wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:55 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
>>>>>>> What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration
>>>>>> plan
>>>>>>> for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all the
>>>> answers up
>>>>>> front.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You're right, we don't need to have all of the answers up front.
>>>>> This is one that I'd like to have some thought put into though.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's lots of things that are fine to handle as we approach it, but
>>>> this
>>>>> one seems like it will lead to us having split issue trackers
>> for_years_
>>>>> down the road.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a good point I hadn't yet considered.
>>>>
>>>> There's not only the migration question that eventually needs to be
>>>> answered, but an immediate question of how will we determine when we can
>>>> release a version of Accumulo? Are there conventions/features on the GH
>>>> issues side that will provide some logical analog to the fixVersion of
>>>> JIRA?
>>>>
>>>
>>> These are all great questions... that could be answered with a trial...
>>>
>>
>> Shall I assume then that you are volunteering to handle all issue
>> management across the disparate systems for all releases?
>>
>> A trial is a good idea to determine _if we like the system_ and want to
>> migrate to it. It's not a substitute for determining if the system is
>> _viable_.
>>
>
> I'm of a different opinion: I already know I like GitHub issues and want to
> migrate to it. What I don't know is if it is viable for Accumulo's needs.


Glad you like GH issues, but that isn't not what is being discussed
here. The matter at hand is figuring out the logistics of *how* do we
move to a different issue tracker in a manner that doesn't derail the
project management of a fully-distributed team.

I'm worried because I feel like there are valid concerns being brought
up here without acknowledgement of the impact of those who only
participate with Accumulo digitally.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

Mike Walch-2
I want step back a little. I don't view this as just changing our issue
tracker. I want to move to GitHub issues as I see a lot of benefit in using
one tool to manage issues, view/browse code, and review pull requests.  One
tool makes contributing to open source so much easier.  I think it will
become the norm over time. This doesn't mean projects need to be locked
into GitHub. Gitlab provides the same thing. I understand there are
switching costs so I am on board with a trial. However, I think the
benefits are worth the switch. You can fight this trend but I think it's
like fighting the move from Subversion to Git.

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2/15/18 6:18 PM, Christopher wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:08 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/15/18 4:56 PM, Christopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:55 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> plan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> answers up
>>>>>
>>>>>> front.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're right, we don't need to have all of the answers up front.
>>>>>> This is one that I'd like to have some thought put into though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's lots of things that are fine to handle as we approach it, but
>>>>>>
>>>>> this
>>>>>
>>>>>> one seems like it will lead to us having split issue trackers
>>>>>>
>>>>> for_years_
>>>
>>>> down the road.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> This is a good point I hadn't yet considered.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's not only the migration question that eventually needs to be
>>>>> answered, but an immediate question of how will we determine when we
>>>>> can
>>>>> release a version of Accumulo? Are there conventions/features on the GH
>>>>> issues side that will provide some logical analog to the fixVersion of
>>>>> JIRA?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> These are all great questions... that could be answered with a trial...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Shall I assume then that you are volunteering to handle all issue
>>> management across the disparate systems for all releases?
>>>
>>> A trial is a good idea to determine _if we like the system_ and want to
>>> migrate to it. It's not a substitute for determining if the system is
>>> _viable_.
>>>
>>>
>> I'm of a different opinion: I already know I like GitHub issues and want
>> to
>> migrate to it. What I don't know is if it is viable for Accumulo's needs.
>>
>
>
> Glad you like GH issues, but that isn't not what is being discussed here.
> The matter at hand is figuring out the logistics of *how* do we move to a
> different issue tracker in a manner that doesn't derail the project
> management of a fully-distributed team.
>
> I'm worried because I feel like there are valid concerns being brought up
> here without acknowledgement of the impact of those who only participate
> with Accumulo digitally.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

Mike Drob-4
The move from SVN to GIT had a clear plan for what happens to the old code,
and a migration strategy for moving commits over.

I think we're having trouble communicating here, but I'm really coming at
this from the perspective of "what if this is fabulously successful" - I
don't want to be seen as the curmudgeon impeding community because this is
how things were back in my day or whatever.

Let's say we do a trial. Let's say that everybody loves it, everybody
becomes 2x more productive, we get 3x more new contributors, whatever. All
good things!

Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a trial. How do we
do a release? What does aggregating issues fixed in a particular version
look like? Sure, I'm fine with people not knowing now, and giving a
concrete answer as to how a trial would help them figure this out.

A trial would also answer how we handle security issues - JIRA can make
certain issues only visible to PMC. Is there a GH issues equivalent?
Probably. Do I want to discover that there isn't a way to do this in three
years when somebody privately reports one? Absolutely not. This should
actually be answerable before the trial, but is something that should be
tested during. I assume there's a workable solution, but we need to know
what it is.

Some issues are not answerable with a trial, however. What happens to our
old issues? Do we close them as Won't Fix? Do we migrate them? Do we lock
JIRA and leave the archives up as a historical reference? If there is some
aspect of a trial that would answer this, then I'm all ears.

Again, I'm not trying to fight growth here. I'm assuming that switching
will be a given once the trial gets off the ground. I know that those
advocating for it already like GH Issues, otherwise they wouldn't be
proposing this change. My questions are all of the nature, "after we
switch, what do we do with [current process X]?"

Mike

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:26 PM, Mike Walch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I want step back a little. I don't view this as just changing our issue
> tracker. I want to move to GitHub issues as I see a lot of benefit in using
> one tool to manage issues, view/browse code, and review pull requests.  One
> tool makes contributing to open source so much easier.  I think it will
> become the norm over time. This doesn't mean projects need to be locked
> into GitHub. Gitlab provides the same thing. I understand there are
> switching costs so I am on board with a trial. However, I think the
> benefits are worth the switch. You can fight this trend but I think it's
> like fighting the move from Subversion to Git.
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On 2/15/18 6:18 PM, Christopher wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:08 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/15/18 4:56 PM, Christopher wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:55 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a
> migration
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> plan
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all the
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> answers up
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> front.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You're right, we don't need to have all of the answers up front.
> >>>>>> This is one that I'd like to have some thought put into though.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There's lots of things that are fine to handle as we approach it,
> but
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> this
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> one seems like it will lead to us having split issue trackers
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> for_years_
> >>>
> >>>> down the road.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> This is a good point I hadn't yet considered.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There's not only the migration question that eventually needs to be
> >>>>> answered, but an immediate question of how will we determine when we
> >>>>> can
> >>>>> release a version of Accumulo? Are there conventions/features on the
> GH
> >>>>> issues side that will provide some logical analog to the fixVersion
> of
> >>>>> JIRA?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> These are all great questions... that could be answered with a
> trial...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Shall I assume then that you are volunteering to handle all issue
> >>> management across the disparate systems for all releases?
> >>>
> >>> A trial is a good idea to determine _if we like the system_ and want to
> >>> migrate to it. It's not a substitute for determining if the system is
> >>> _viable_.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I'm of a different opinion: I already know I like GitHub issues and want
> >> to
> >> migrate to it. What I don't know is if it is viable for Accumulo's
> needs.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Glad you like GH issues, but that isn't not what is being discussed here.
> > The matter at hand is figuring out the logistics of *how* do we move to a
> > different issue tracker in a manner that doesn't derail the project
> > management of a fully-distributed team.
> >
> > I'm worried because I feel like there are valid concerns being brought up
> > here without acknowledgement of the impact of those who only participate
> > with Accumulo digitally.
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

Mike Walch-2
I am going to try to answer your questions. Keep in mind that my answers
are how
I would handle the transition. The point of the trial is to iterate and
find the best
solution for everyone.


> Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a trial. How do we
> do a release? What does aggregating issues fixed in a particular version
> look like?
>

You can tag GH issues with a version but I think it's best to just go
through commit history
to compile the release notes. This should already be done as there is no
guarantee
even with Jira that all issues were labeled correctly. If you are using
GitHub issues, all issue
numbers in commits link back to the issue or pull request which we don't
have with Jira right
now.


> A trial would also answer how we handle security issues - JIRA can make
> certain issues only visible to PMC. Is there a GH issues equivalent?
>

I don't think there is GH issues equivalent but I don't think this is a
critical feature.
The PMC has record on the private email list of any security issues. If
it's a true security
issue, shouldn't it be fixed immediately anyways?

Some issues are not answerable with a trial, however. What happens to our
> old issues? Do we close them as Won't Fix? Do we migrate them? Do we lock
> JIRA and leave the archives up as a historical reference? If there is some
> aspect of a trial that would answer this, then I'm all ears.
>

As for the migration, both GitHub & Jira have REST APIs. I could create a
script that
reads all open Jira issues and creates a corresponding GitHub issue. Each
issue
on GitHub could link back the old Jira issues and vice versa.  It wouldn't
be a perfect
transition as I am sure not all fields will be moved over but we could at
least get title,
descriptions, reporter, and affected versions moved. If there is a link
back to the original
Jira issue, you could always go back to view original issue. This migration
could be
tested on a fork before being done on the main repo.  After the migration
is done,
I would lock Jira but leave it up for historical purposes.


> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:26 PM, Mike Walch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I want step back a little. I don't view this as just changing our issue
> > tracker. I want to move to GitHub issues as I see a lot of benefit in
> using
> > one tool to manage issues, view/browse code, and review pull requests.
> One
> > tool makes contributing to open source so much easier.  I think it will
> > become the norm over time. This doesn't mean projects need to be locked
> > into GitHub. Gitlab provides the same thing. I understand there are
> > switching costs so I am on board with a trial. However, I think the
> > benefits are worth the switch. You can fight this trend but I think it's
> > like fighting the move from Subversion to Git.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2/15/18 6:18 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:08 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 2/15/18 4:56 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:55 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a
> > migration
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> plan
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all the
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> answers up
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> front.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> You're right, we don't need to have all of the answers up front.
> > >>>>>> This is one that I'd like to have some thought put into though.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> There's lots of things that are fine to handle as we approach it,
> > but
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> this
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> one seems like it will lead to us having split issue trackers
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> for_years_
> > >>>
> > >>>> down the road.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> This is a good point I hadn't yet considered.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> There's not only the migration question that eventually needs to be
> > >>>>> answered, but an immediate question of how will we determine when
> we
> > >>>>> can
> > >>>>> release a version of Accumulo? Are there conventions/features on
> the
> > GH
> > >>>>> issues side that will provide some logical analog to the fixVersion
> > of
> > >>>>> JIRA?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> These are all great questions... that could be answered with a
> > trial...
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> Shall I assume then that you are volunteering to handle all issue
> > >>> management across the disparate systems for all releases?
> > >>>
> > >>> A trial is a good idea to determine _if we like the system_ and want
> to
> > >>> migrate to it. It's not a substitute for determining if the system is
> > >>> _viable_.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> I'm of a different opinion: I already know I like GitHub issues and
> want
> > >> to
> > >> migrate to it. What I don't know is if it is viable for Accumulo's
> > needs.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Glad you like GH issues, but that isn't not what is being discussed
> here.
> > > The matter at hand is figuring out the logistics of *how* do we move
> to a
> > > different issue tracker in a manner that doesn't derail the project
> > > management of a fully-distributed team.
> > >
> > > I'm worried because I feel like there are valid concerns being brought
> up
> > > here without acknowledgement of the impact of those who only
> participate
> > > with Accumulo digitally.
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

Mike Drob-4
Thanks Mike, those are great answers! They don't even have to be the final
answers, but I'm really happy to see that the migration path has been
thought about.

I disagree with you about the criticality of security issues and how we
handle them, but we can run a "fire drill" during the trial to fully
develop the process.

If you're volunteering to write a migration script using rest APIs (or
perhaps one already exists) then that addresses the last of my concerns to
starting a trial.
Obviously I'd consider completion and testing of the script a requirement
to completing the switch, but that's still a ways off.

Consider me officially onboard with running a trial.

Mike

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Mike Walch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I am going to try to answer your questions. Keep in mind that my answers
> are how
> I would handle the transition. The point of the trial is to iterate and
> find the best
> solution for everyone.
>
>
> > Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a trial. How do
> we
> > do a release? What does aggregating issues fixed in a particular version
> > look like?
> >
>
> You can tag GH issues with a version but I think it's best to just go
> through commit history
> to compile the release notes. This should already be done as there is no
> guarantee
> even with Jira that all issues were labeled correctly. If you are using
> GitHub issues, all issue
> numbers in commits link back to the issue or pull request which we don't
> have with Jira right
> now.
>
>
> > A trial would also answer how we handle security issues - JIRA can make
> > certain issues only visible to PMC. Is there a GH issues equivalent?
> >
>
> I don't think there is GH issues equivalent but I don't think this is a
> critical feature.
> The PMC has record on the private email list of any security issues. If
> it's a true security
> issue, shouldn't it be fixed immediately anyways?
>
> Some issues are not answerable with a trial, however. What happens to our
> > old issues? Do we close them as Won't Fix? Do we migrate them? Do we lock
> > JIRA and leave the archives up as a historical reference? If there is
> some
> > aspect of a trial that would answer this, then I'm all ears.
> >
>
> As for the migration, both GitHub & Jira have REST APIs. I could create a
> script that
> reads all open Jira issues and creates a corresponding GitHub issue. Each
> issue
> on GitHub could link back the old Jira issues and vice versa.  It wouldn't
> be a perfect
> transition as I am sure not all fields will be moved over but we could at
> least get title,
> descriptions, reporter, and affected versions moved. If there is a link
> back to the original
> Jira issue, you could always go back to view original issue. This migration
> could be
> tested on a fork before being done on the main repo.  After the migration
> is done,
> I would lock Jira but leave it up for historical purposes.
>
>
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:26 PM, Mike Walch <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > I want step back a little. I don't view this as just changing our issue
> > > tracker. I want to move to GitHub issues as I see a lot of benefit in
> > using
> > > one tool to manage issues, view/browse code, and review pull requests.
> > One
> > > tool makes contributing to open source so much easier.  I think it will
> > > become the norm over time. This doesn't mean projects need to be locked
> > > into GitHub. Gitlab provides the same thing. I understand there are
> > > switching costs so I am on board with a trial. However, I think the
> > > benefits are worth the switch. You can fight this trend but I think
> it's
> > > like fighting the move from Subversion to Git.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2/15/18 6:18 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:08 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 2/15/18 4:56 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:55 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a
> > > migration
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> plan
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all
> the
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> answers up
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> front.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> You're right, we don't need to have all of the answers up
> front.
> > > >>>>>> This is one that I'd like to have some thought put into though.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> There's lots of things that are fine to handle as we approach
> it,
> > > but
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> this
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> one seems like it will lead to us having split issue trackers
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> for_years_
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> down the road.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> This is a good point I hadn't yet considered.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> There's not only the migration question that eventually needs to
> be
> > > >>>>> answered, but an immediate question of how will we determine when
> > we
> > > >>>>> can
> > > >>>>> release a version of Accumulo? Are there conventions/features on
> > the
> > > GH
> > > >>>>> issues side that will provide some logical analog to the
> fixVersion
> > > of
> > > >>>>> JIRA?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> These are all great questions... that could be answered with a
> > > trial...
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Shall I assume then that you are volunteering to handle all issue
> > > >>> management across the disparate systems for all releases?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> A trial is a good idea to determine _if we like the system_ and
> want
> > to
> > > >>> migrate to it. It's not a substitute for determining if the system
> is
> > > >>> _viable_.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >> I'm of a different opinion: I already know I like GitHub issues and
> > want
> > > >> to
> > > >> migrate to it. What I don't know is if it is viable for Accumulo's
> > > needs.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Glad you like GH issues, but that isn't not what is being discussed
> > here.
> > > > The matter at hand is figuring out the logistics of *how* do we move
> > to a
> > > > different issue tracker in a manner that doesn't derail the project
> > > > management of a fully-distributed team.
> > > >
> > > > I'm worried because I feel like there are valid concerns being
> brought
> > up
> > > > here without acknowledgement of the impact of those who only
> > participate
> > > > with Accumulo digitally.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

Sean Busbey
In reply to this post by Mike Walch-2
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Mike Walch <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> > Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a trial. How do
> we
> > do a release? What does aggregating issues fixed in a particular version
> > look like?
> >
>
> You can tag GH issues with a version but I think it's best to just go
> through commit history
> to compile the release notes. This should already be done as there is no
> guarantee
> even with Jira that all issues were labeled correctly. If you are using
> GitHub issues, all issue
> numbers in commits link back to the issue or pull request which we don't
> have with Jira right
> now.
>
>
This gets to an issue I have. What's our source of truth about "X is fixed
in Y" during the trial? I have been assuming that JIRA is currently our
source of truth, but maybe that's wrong. Is it the release notes?

IMHO, Git is a poor choice for the source of truth due to the immutability
of commit messages, at least in ASF contexts since we can't do force pushes
(in at least some branches).


--
busbey
12