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

[Jordan West <jo...@gmail.com>]

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

Jordan

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 1:45 PM Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
wrote:

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