You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ozone.apache.org by "Elek, Marton" <el...@apache.org> on 2020/11/01 14:30:03 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] Github issues vs Jira issues
Thanks the questions Arpit and Vivek.
I agree with you: the main question is how the existing workflows can be
mapped to the features of github issues.
We need to collect all the used workflows. I checked the two features
which you mentioned:
1. EPIC
Epics can be managed in Github with created "projects".
For example: https://github.com/elek/hadoop-ozone/projects
Seems to be slightly better than Jira:
1. It can show all the existing / in-progress epic as a list
2. It can show a Kanban board for all the epics
3. Issues can be moved automatically based on the status of the PR.
2. FIXED VERSION / CUSTOM FIELDS
Yes, custom fields are usually handled by custom labels in Github, which
is slightly weaker.
However you don't need to create label for the fix versions and both
issues and PRs can be assigned to "Milestones"
Milestones are something like the versions and provide a progress view
out-of the box:
https://github.com/elek/hadoop-ozone/milestone/1
Do you have any other features in your mind which should be checked?
Thanks,
Marton
On 10/28/20 5:21 PM, Vivek Ratnavel wrote:
> Also, another thing to note would be that Github issues don't support
> Epics.
>
> We will have to create milestones to track big features and their progress
> or use a third-party Github action like this -
> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/epic-issues-for-github.
>
> Regards,
> Vivek Subramanian
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:48 AM Arpit Agarwal <aa...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Doesn't look like GitHub issues supports custom fields. Does it support
>> basics like resolution/fix version? I checked out Druid's GitHub issues,
>> everything seems to be tacked on using labels.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 1:09 AM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The new Apache Ozone project requires new git repositories / issue
>>> tracker / wiki namespaces.
>>>
>>> And it seems to be a good opportunity to think about the used issue
>>> tracker / issue workflow.
>>>
>>>
>>> I suggest to consider using Github for issue tracking and wiki instead
>>> of Jira / Confluence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Advantages:
>>>
>>> * Better integration between PRs and issues (and between issues and
>>> other Github features)
>>>
>>> * Current workflow would be simplified (doesn't require to create
>>> boilerplate Jira issue for each new PR)
>>>
>>> * Easier for for contributors (doesn't require to create jira user,
>>> request to assign permission to be an assignee...)
>>>
>>> * Easier to follow discussions (I know some issues where half of the
>>> discussion was under the PR the other half was under the Jira)
>>>
>>> * Easier to follow contribution statistics (enough to query github api)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Disadvantage:
>>>
>>> * Finding / reading old issue still require Jira (but we can migrate
>>> the open issues if we need them)
>>>
>>> I don't think it's a big deal as we already have some issues at other
>>> places (for example children of HDFS-7240).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What are your opinions?
>>>
>>>
>>> Note: There are Apache projects which already uses Github instead of
>>> Jira (Superset, Druid and many smaller incubator projects)
>>>
>>> Marton
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ozone-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ozone-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Github issues vs Jira issues
Posted by Uma gangumalla <um...@apache.org>.
I agree with many others here. I think the flexible query part is a very
useful feature from JIRA. If we have equivalent in gitgub issues, we can
try but may not be as immediate transition though.
I think people may need some time to get comfort with github
issues(personally I used(limited) git issues just for tracking issues of
internal repos(non apache)) . If there is any plugin to sync between JIRA
and Git issues, we can explore and see for some time whether everyone
comfortable.
Maybe it is a good idea to start voting to decide.
Regards,
Uma
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:09 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> A quick summary about this thread:
>
>
> 1. Github seems to provide better user experience, and easier
> contribution possibilities
>
> 2. If (!) we can live with the current structure of Github / limitations.
>
>
>
> Based on the discussion from the last sync, I feel that everybody is
> interested to try it out, but I feel some concerns to do the decision
> right now. Hard to imagine the final workflow after years of Jira-based
> Hadoop development (even if the patch-handling already migrated)
>
>
> My proposal:
>
> 1. Start a two month trial period
>
> 2. Make the Jira creation for new PRs optional.
>
> 3. Start to use proper tags (priority, version) for pull requests. (I
> can create an additional Github action to fill the defaults --> no big
> change).
>
> 4. Enable Github issues in Ozone project and use it with a few new
> issues. (Doesn't required to create all the new issues in Github, just a
> few minor one, to test it, understand the limitations)
>
>
> After the two month trial period, we can make a decision, and:
>
> 1. Migrate old Jira issues to Github (if Github is prefered)
>
> 2. Migrate the experimental Github issues to Jira, and create Jira
> issues for PRs when missing. (if Jira is preferred)
>
>
> +1: Use Github wiki for wiki pages.
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
> Marton
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Github issues vs Jira issues
Posted by Hanisha Koneru <hk...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
Thanks Marton for starting the discussion.
I like the proposal of integrating issue tracking with the repo. It would greatly help with keeping the discussions in one place and avoid the extra step of creating a Jira.
I personally have never worked with Github issues and as such I am not familiar with the pros and cons. But considering the objections of everyone who has had experience with Github issues, I am not fully +1 with the proposal.
At the same time, I would like to try out Github issues and see the pros and cons. In Marton’s proposal, if we still keep the Jira creation mandatory in the trial period, we could try out Github issues and still keep the old tracking mechanism intact in the meanwhile.
Thanks
Hanisha
> On Nov 9, 2020, at 10:19 AM, Xiaoyu Yao <xy...@cloudera.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Thanks all for the discussion. I have similar concerns around function
> completeness of Github issues. For example, are we going to miss JIRA's
> flexible query with filtering and comprehensive role/permission management,
> etc?
>
> This may not be a fair comparison as JIRA is targeted as a project
> management tool while Github is mainly for code repo with some issue
> tracking capabilities. I personally favor using tools to do the things that
> they are best at. Should we start a vote on this to decide the community
> choice?
>
> Xiaoyu
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 8:49 AM Mukul Kumar Singh <mu...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for starting this thread Marton.
>>
>> I have worked with Github issues for other projects and find the
>> tracking rudimentary.
>>
>> Basically absence of good queries, saving older queries, lack of
>> dashboards are my biggest objections to this.
>>
>> I feel we can use some of the plugins with Github and Jira to provide
>> better integrations.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/11/20 9:40 pm, Arpit Agarwal wrote:
>>> Marton, you should start a vote thread to get official
>> consensus/objections.
>>>
>>>> I feel that everybody is interested to try it out
>>> Need more details here before proceeding.
>>>
>>> Personally I am not in favor but if there is broad consensus from the
>> community I will not object.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Arpit
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 9, 2020, at 4:23 AM, Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A quick summary about this thread:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. Github seems to provide better user experience, and easier
>> contribution possibilities
>>>>
>>>> 2. If (!) we can live with the current structure of Github /
>> limitations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Based on the discussion from the last sync, I feel that everybody is
>> interested to try it out, but I feel some concerns to do the decision right
>> now. Hard to imagine the final workflow after years of Jira-based Hadoop
>> development (even if the patch-handling already migrated)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My proposal:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Start a two month trial period
>>>>
>>>> 2. Make the Jira creation for new PRs optional.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Start to use proper tags (priority, version) for pull requests. (I
>> can create an additional Github action to fill the defaults --> no big
>> change).
>>>>
>>>> 4. Enable Github issues in Ozone project and use it with a few new
>> issues. (Doesn't required to create all the new issues in Github, just a
>> few minor one, to test it, understand the limitations)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After the two month trial period, we can make a decision, and:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Migrate old Jira issues to Github (if Github is prefered)
>>>>
>>>> 2. Migrate the experimental Github issues to Jira, and create Jira
>> issues for PRs when missing. (if Jira is preferred)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1: Use Github wiki for wiki pages.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Marton
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Github issues vs Jira issues
Posted by "Elek, Marton" <el...@apache.org>.
Thank you all the response, they were very value feedback and very good
collection of questions which should be answered before going forward
with github issues.
Based on the feedback, I suggest the following:
1. don not enable the Github issues, yet
2. Create additional github action to add labels / milestones to each
PR automatically (it will make easier to test the query functionalities).
3. Create github action to close jira issue when PR is merged
4. Create github action to create a Jira issue in the background when
PR is opened and HDDS is not included in the title (assignee can be
unknown in case of a new contributor).
5. Create a wiki page to collect all the answers to the previous question.
These steps will improve the development experience without changing the
current workflow.
After having all of these points we can continue the discussion and
check benefits with more background knowledge.
Let me know what do you think...
Thanks,
Marton
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Github issues vs Jira issues
Posted by Aravindan Vijayan <av...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
Thanks for taking this up Marton.
I played around with Github issues, projects & milestones. I like the
simplicity of the UI and the one stop place for all things related to
development. However, the objection around the project management related
limitations of Github seem valid. I am OK with trying out a couple of
projects using Github to see one what gains/loses from this transition.
Some related questions/observations.
- Do reverts automatically re-open issues?
- Fix Version is very heavily used in the Hadoop JIRA world. Can we mark
issues as available in multiple fix versions using Github issues after
backporting?
- I am a heavy user of JIRA split panes, but I find that Github search
just lists the issues that match the query results. Is there a split pane
option?
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:57 PM Rui Wang <am...@apache.org> wrote:
> From what I can tell above, one of the concerns might not be mentioned (or
> I might have missed it) is migration cost for people who didn't have
> experience on Github issue. For people who only worked on JIRA in the
> past, github issues might affect contributions from those people.
>
> An assumption here though is that the cost for a person to learn a new way
> to organize issues is non-trivial, and the number of people who only worked
> on JIRA (or like to work on JIRA) is significant. This assumption could be
> wrong.
>
> -Rui
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 10:20 AM Xiaoyu Yao <xy...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks all for the discussion. I have similar concerns around function
> > completeness of Github issues. For example, are we going to miss JIRA's
> > flexible query with filtering and comprehensive role/permission
> management,
> > etc?
> >
> > This may not be a fair comparison as JIRA is targeted as a project
> > management tool while Github is mainly for code repo with some issue
> > tracking capabilities. I personally favor using tools to do the things
> that
> > they are best at. Should we start a vote on this to decide the community
> > choice?
> >
> > Xiaoyu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 8:49 AM Mukul Kumar Singh
> > <mu...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for starting this thread Marton.
> > >
> > > I have worked with Github issues for other projects and find the
> > > tracking rudimentary.
> > >
> > > Basically absence of good queries, saving older queries, lack of
> > > dashboards are my biggest objections to this.
> > >
> > > I feel we can use some of the plugins with Github and Jira to provide
> > > better integrations.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 09/11/20 9:40 pm, Arpit Agarwal wrote:
> > > > Marton, you should start a vote thread to get official
> > > consensus/objections.
> > > >
> > > >> I feel that everybody is interested to try it out
> > > > Need more details here before proceeding.
> > > >
> > > > Personally I am not in favor but if there is broad consensus from the
> > > community I will not object.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Arpit
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> On Nov 9, 2020, at 4:23 AM, Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> A quick summary about this thread:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. Github seems to provide better user experience, and easier
> > > contribution possibilities
> > > >>
> > > >> 2. If (!) we can live with the current structure of Github /
> > > limitations.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Based on the discussion from the last sync, I feel that everybody is
> > > interested to try it out, but I feel some concerns to do the decision
> > right
> > > now. Hard to imagine the final workflow after years of Jira-based
> Hadoop
> > > development (even if the patch-handling already migrated)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> My proposal:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. Start a two month trial period
> > > >>
> > > >> 2. Make the Jira creation for new PRs optional.
> > > >>
> > > >> 3. Start to use proper tags (priority, version) for pull requests.
> > (I
> > > can create an additional Github action to fill the defaults --> no big
> > > change).
> > > >>
> > > >> 4. Enable Github issues in Ozone project and use it with a few new
> > > issues. (Doesn't required to create all the new issues in Github, just
> a
> > > few minor one, to test it, understand the limitations)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> After the two month trial period, we can make a decision, and:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. Migrate old Jira issues to Github (if Github is prefered)
> > > >>
> > > >> 2. Migrate the experimental Github issues to Jira, and create Jira
> > > issues for PRs when missing. (if Jira is preferred)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> +1: Use Github wiki for wiki pages.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> What do you think?
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Marton
> > > >>
> > > >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
> > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Aravindan
Re: [DISCUSS] Github issues vs Jira issues
Posted by Rui Wang <am...@apache.org>.
From what I can tell above, one of the concerns might not be mentioned (or
I might have missed it) is migration cost for people who didn't have
experience on Github issue. For people who only worked on JIRA in the
past, github issues might affect contributions from those people.
An assumption here though is that the cost for a person to learn a new way
to organize issues is non-trivial, and the number of people who only worked
on JIRA (or like to work on JIRA) is significant. This assumption could be
wrong.
-Rui
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 10:20 AM Xiaoyu Yao <xy...@cloudera.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Thanks all for the discussion. I have similar concerns around function
> completeness of Github issues. For example, are we going to miss JIRA's
> flexible query with filtering and comprehensive role/permission management,
> etc?
>
> This may not be a fair comparison as JIRA is targeted as a project
> management tool while Github is mainly for code repo with some issue
> tracking capabilities. I personally favor using tools to do the things that
> they are best at. Should we start a vote on this to decide the community
> choice?
>
> Xiaoyu
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 8:49 AM Mukul Kumar Singh
> <mu...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for starting this thread Marton.
> >
> > I have worked with Github issues for other projects and find the
> > tracking rudimentary.
> >
> > Basically absence of good queries, saving older queries, lack of
> > dashboards are my biggest objections to this.
> >
> > I feel we can use some of the plugins with Github and Jira to provide
> > better integrations.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 09/11/20 9:40 pm, Arpit Agarwal wrote:
> > > Marton, you should start a vote thread to get official
> > consensus/objections.
> > >
> > >> I feel that everybody is interested to try it out
> > > Need more details here before proceeding.
> > >
> > > Personally I am not in favor but if there is broad consensus from the
> > community I will not object.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Arpit
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Nov 9, 2020, at 4:23 AM, Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> A quick summary about this thread:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 1. Github seems to provide better user experience, and easier
> > contribution possibilities
> > >>
> > >> 2. If (!) we can live with the current structure of Github /
> > limitations.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Based on the discussion from the last sync, I feel that everybody is
> > interested to try it out, but I feel some concerns to do the decision
> right
> > now. Hard to imagine the final workflow after years of Jira-based Hadoop
> > development (even if the patch-handling already migrated)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> My proposal:
> > >>
> > >> 1. Start a two month trial period
> > >>
> > >> 2. Make the Jira creation for new PRs optional.
> > >>
> > >> 3. Start to use proper tags (priority, version) for pull requests.
> (I
> > can create an additional Github action to fill the defaults --> no big
> > change).
> > >>
> > >> 4. Enable Github issues in Ozone project and use it with a few new
> > issues. (Doesn't required to create all the new issues in Github, just a
> > few minor one, to test it, understand the limitations)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> After the two month trial period, we can make a decision, and:
> > >>
> > >> 1. Migrate old Jira issues to Github (if Github is prefered)
> > >>
> > >> 2. Migrate the experimental Github issues to Jira, and create Jira
> > issues for PRs when missing. (if Jira is preferred)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> +1: Use Github wiki for wiki pages.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> What do you think?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Marton
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
> > >>
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Github issues vs Jira issues
Posted by Xiaoyu Yao <xy...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
Thanks all for the discussion. I have similar concerns around function
completeness of Github issues. For example, are we going to miss JIRA's
flexible query with filtering and comprehensive role/permission management,
etc?
This may not be a fair comparison as JIRA is targeted as a project
management tool while Github is mainly for code repo with some issue
tracking capabilities. I personally favor using tools to do the things that
they are best at. Should we start a vote on this to decide the community
choice?
Xiaoyu
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 8:49 AM Mukul Kumar Singh <mu...@cloudera.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Thanks for starting this thread Marton.
>
> I have worked with Github issues for other projects and find the
> tracking rudimentary.
>
> Basically absence of good queries, saving older queries, lack of
> dashboards are my biggest objections to this.
>
> I feel we can use some of the plugins with Github and Jira to provide
> better integrations.
>
>
>
> On 09/11/20 9:40 pm, Arpit Agarwal wrote:
> > Marton, you should start a vote thread to get official
> consensus/objections.
> >
> >> I feel that everybody is interested to try it out
> > Need more details here before proceeding.
> >
> > Personally I am not in favor but if there is broad consensus from the
> community I will not object.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Arpit
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Nov 9, 2020, at 4:23 AM, Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> A quick summary about this thread:
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. Github seems to provide better user experience, and easier
> contribution possibilities
> >>
> >> 2. If (!) we can live with the current structure of Github /
> limitations.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Based on the discussion from the last sync, I feel that everybody is
> interested to try it out, but I feel some concerns to do the decision right
> now. Hard to imagine the final workflow after years of Jira-based Hadoop
> development (even if the patch-handling already migrated)
> >>
> >>
> >> My proposal:
> >>
> >> 1. Start a two month trial period
> >>
> >> 2. Make the Jira creation for new PRs optional.
> >>
> >> 3. Start to use proper tags (priority, version) for pull requests. (I
> can create an additional Github action to fill the defaults --> no big
> change).
> >>
> >> 4. Enable Github issues in Ozone project and use it with a few new
> issues. (Doesn't required to create all the new issues in Github, just a
> few minor one, to test it, understand the limitations)
> >>
> >>
> >> After the two month trial period, we can make a decision, and:
> >>
> >> 1. Migrate old Jira issues to Github (if Github is prefered)
> >>
> >> 2. Migrate the experimental Github issues to Jira, and create Jira
> issues for PRs when missing. (if Jira is preferred)
> >>
> >>
> >> +1: Use Github wiki for wiki pages.
> >>
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Marton
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Github issues vs Jira issues
Posted by Mukul Kumar Singh <mu...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
Thanks for starting this thread Marton.
I have worked with Github issues for other projects and find the
tracking rudimentary.
Basically absence of good queries, saving older queries, lack of
dashboards are my biggest objections to this.
I feel we can use some of the plugins with Github and Jira to provide
better integrations.
On 09/11/20 9:40 pm, Arpit Agarwal wrote:
> Marton, you should start a vote thread to get official consensus/objections.
>
>> I feel that everybody is interested to try it out
> Need more details here before proceeding.
>
> Personally I am not in favor but if there is broad consensus from the community I will not object.
>
> Thanks,
> Arpit
>
>
>
>> On Nov 9, 2020, at 4:23 AM, Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> A quick summary about this thread:
>>
>>
>> 1. Github seems to provide better user experience, and easier contribution possibilities
>>
>> 2. If (!) we can live with the current structure of Github / limitations.
>>
>>
>>
>> Based on the discussion from the last sync, I feel that everybody is interested to try it out, but I feel some concerns to do the decision right now. Hard to imagine the final workflow after years of Jira-based Hadoop development (even if the patch-handling already migrated)
>>
>>
>> My proposal:
>>
>> 1. Start a two month trial period
>>
>> 2. Make the Jira creation for new PRs optional.
>>
>> 3. Start to use proper tags (priority, version) for pull requests. (I can create an additional Github action to fill the defaults --> no big change).
>>
>> 4. Enable Github issues in Ozone project and use it with a few new issues. (Doesn't required to create all the new issues in Github, just a few minor one, to test it, understand the limitations)
>>
>>
>> After the two month trial period, we can make a decision, and:
>>
>> 1. Migrate old Jira issues to Github (if Github is prefered)
>>
>> 2. Migrate the experimental Github issues to Jira, and create Jira issues for PRs when missing. (if Jira is preferred)
>>
>>
>> +1: Use Github wiki for wiki pages.
>>
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Marton
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Github issues vs Jira issues
Posted by Arpit Agarwal <aa...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
Marton, you should start a vote thread to get official consensus/objections.
> I feel that everybody is interested to try it out
Need more details here before proceeding.
Personally I am not in favor but if there is broad consensus from the community I will not object.
Thanks,
Arpit
> On Nov 9, 2020, at 4:23 AM, Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> A quick summary about this thread:
>
>
> 1. Github seems to provide better user experience, and easier contribution possibilities
>
> 2. If (!) we can live with the current structure of Github / limitations.
>
>
>
> Based on the discussion from the last sync, I feel that everybody is interested to try it out, but I feel some concerns to do the decision right now. Hard to imagine the final workflow after years of Jira-based Hadoop development (even if the patch-handling already migrated)
>
>
> My proposal:
>
> 1. Start a two month trial period
>
> 2. Make the Jira creation for new PRs optional.
>
> 3. Start to use proper tags (priority, version) for pull requests. (I can create an additional Github action to fill the defaults --> no big change).
>
> 4. Enable Github issues in Ozone project and use it with a few new issues. (Doesn't required to create all the new issues in Github, just a few minor one, to test it, understand the limitations)
>
>
> After the two month trial period, we can make a decision, and:
>
> 1. Migrate old Jira issues to Github (if Github is prefered)
>
> 2. Migrate the experimental Github issues to Jira, and create Jira issues for PRs when missing. (if Jira is preferred)
>
>
> +1: Use Github wiki for wiki pages.
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
> Marton
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Github issues vs Jira issues
Posted by "Elek, Marton" <el...@apache.org>.
A quick summary about this thread:
1. Github seems to provide better user experience, and easier
contribution possibilities
2. If (!) we can live with the current structure of Github / limitations.
Based on the discussion from the last sync, I feel that everybody is
interested to try it out, but I feel some concerns to do the decision
right now. Hard to imagine the final workflow after years of Jira-based
Hadoop development (even if the patch-handling already migrated)
My proposal:
1. Start a two month trial period
2. Make the Jira creation for new PRs optional.
3. Start to use proper tags (priority, version) for pull requests. (I
can create an additional Github action to fill the defaults --> no big
change).
4. Enable Github issues in Ozone project and use it with a few new
issues. (Doesn't required to create all the new issues in Github, just a
few minor one, to test it, understand the limitations)
After the two month trial period, we can make a decision, and:
1. Migrate old Jira issues to Github (if Github is prefered)
2. Migrate the experimental Github issues to Jira, and create Jira
issues for PRs when missing. (if Jira is preferred)
+1: Use Github wiki for wiki pages.
What do you think?
Thanks,
Marton
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Github issues vs Jira issues
Posted by "Elek, Marton" <el...@apache.org>.
Thank you very much, it's extremely useful insight.
Marton
ps: I have some proposals to resolve this thread, will add to the thread
as a new mail.
On 11/1/20 8:17 PM, anu engineer wrote:
> This is Anecdotal data -- However I thought it might be useful to share.
>
> In my current project(Unfortunately not open source, so I will not be able
> share the data or screen shots) we use Github issues exclusively to track
> all the issues.
>
> Some things work very well -- So the pros are:
> 1. Very easy to create a milestone from different git repositories, We use
> MileStones extensively.
> 2. When you commit a pull request, and resolve the issue, things move in
> the Milestone.
> 3. Nothing fancy, all you have is open, in progress, blocked and resolved.
> Very easy to understand and manage, very useful for small teams and small
> sprints.
> 4. This is just a core essentials product, and does nothing fancy -- If you
> are used to the power of JIRA, you will be disappointed.
> 5. In my experience, if you are running small focused sprints, this works
> well, since you are not trying to deliver 500 closed issues in a release,
> but rather less than 100 issues in a sprint.
> 6. Simple,d gets the job and stays out of the way.
> 7. Fully integrated, you see the issue, code review, comments, CI,
> everything in one place. That is really cool when you look at an issue
> later.
>
> Cons --
> 1. Compared to JIRA -- most of the power is missing -- for example, you
> cannot do a burndown chart to see you progress in Github.
> 2. The powerful tags, expressive power of JIRAs Query language etc, is
> completely missing.
>
> Having worked with both, my personal take is that if you are a small
> development focused group -- then Github issues are really cool.
> But if you are a large org, 100s of developers and program managers
> requiring you to steer the boat, well, JIRA is really the tool, and Github
> will not cut it.
>
> Having used both systems extensively, I find Github Issues a better tool,
> but your mileage will vary.
>
> Thanks
> Anu
>
> Ps. I was not aware that a project like K8s can be successfully run using
> Github issues -- perhaps the nature of collaboration is very dev
> centric and not as much
> management focused and Github issues work well. I find the Github issues
> really easy, simple and relaxing to use and don't miss the heavy duty
> features of JIRA.
> But be warned, if you are looking for an equivalent system to JIRA, Github
> issues is not it. You will have to be prepared to modify your workflows,
> but not in a bad way.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2020 at 10:17 AM Arpit Agarwal <aa...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Looks too unstructured. They are using labels for Issue type and priority.
>> I don’t see any priority field either. Not sure it is worth the energy to
>> make the switch.
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 1, 2020, at 9:34 AM, Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Good question, I didn't do a research, yet.
>>>
>>> But I knew that Kubernetes is a heavy Github user and I found it uses
>> milestones for versions:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/milestones
>>>
>>> Or k3s:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/rancher/k3d/milestones
>>>
>>> Marton
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/1/20 5:24 PM, Arpit Agarwal wrote:
>>>> Do you have an example of another project using milestones as you're
>> suggesting?
>>>> ----- Original message -----
>>>> From: "Elek, Marton" <el...@apache.org>
>>>> To: ozone-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Github issues vs Jira issues
>>>> Date: Sunday, November 01, 2020 6:30 AM
>>>> Thanks the questions Arpit and Vivek.
>>>> I agree with you: the main question is how the existing workflows can be
>>>> mapped to the features of github issues.
>>>> We need to collect all the used workflows. I checked the two features
>>>> which you mentioned:
>>>> 1. EPIC
>>>> Epics can be managed in Github with created "projects".
>>>> For example: https://github.com/elek/hadoop-ozone/projects
>>>> Seems to be slightly better than Jira:
>>>> 1. It can show all the existing / in-progress epic as a list
>>>> 2. It can show a Kanban board for all the epics
>>>> 3. Issues can be moved automatically based on the status of the PR.
>>>> 2. FIXED VERSION / CUSTOM FIELDS
>>>> Yes, custom fields are usually handled by custom labels in Github, which
>>>> is slightly weaker.
>>>> However you don't need to create label for the fix versions and both
>>>> issues and PRs can be assigned to "Milestones"
>>>> Milestones are something like the versions and provide a progress view
>>>> out-of the box:
>>>> https://github.com/elek/hadoop-ozone/milestone/1
>>>> Do you have any other features in your mind which should be checked?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Marton
>>>> On 10/28/20 5:21 PM, Vivek Ratnavel wrote:
>>>>> Also, another thing to note would be that Github issues don't support
>>>>> Epics.
>>>>>
>>>>> We will have to create milestones to track big features and their
>> progress
>>>>> or use a third-party Github action like this -
>>>>> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/epic-issues-for-github.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Vivek Subramanian
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:48 AM Arpit Agarwal
>> <aa...@cloudera.com.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't look like GitHub issues supports custom fields. Does it
>> support
>>>>>> basics like resolution/fix version? I checked out Druid's GitHub
>> issues,
>>>>>> everything seems to be tacked on using labels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 1:09 AM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The new Apache Ozone project requires new git repositories / issue
>>>>>>> tracker / wiki namespaces.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And it seems to be a good opportunity to think about the used issue
>>>>>>> tracker / issue workflow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suggest to consider using Github for issue tracking and wiki
>> instead
>>>>>>> of Jira / Confluence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Advantages:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Better integration between PRs and issues (and between issues
>> and
>>>>>>> other Github features)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Current workflow would be simplified (doesn't require to create
>>>>>>> boilerplate Jira issue for each new PR)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Easier for for contributors (doesn't require to create jira
>> user,
>>>>>>> request to assign permission to be an assignee...)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Easier to follow discussions (I know some issues where half of
>> the
>>>>>>> discussion was under the PR the other half was under the Jira)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Easier to follow contribution statistics (enough to query
>> github api)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Disadvantage:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Finding / reading old issue still require Jira (but we can
>> migrate
>>>>>>> the open issues if we need them)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think it's a big deal as we already have some issues at other
>>>>>>> places (for example children of HDFS-7240).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are your opinions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note: There are Apache projects which already uses Github instead of
>>>>>>> Jira (Superset, Druid and many smaller incubator projects)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ozone-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ozone-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Github issues vs Jira issues
Posted by anu engineer <an...@gmail.com>.
This is Anecdotal data -- However I thought it might be useful to share.
In my current project(Unfortunately not open source, so I will not be able
share the data or screen shots) we use Github issues exclusively to track
all the issues.
Some things work very well -- So the pros are:
1. Very easy to create a milestone from different git repositories, We use
MileStones extensively.
2. When you commit a pull request, and resolve the issue, things move in
the Milestone.
3. Nothing fancy, all you have is open, in progress, blocked and resolved.
Very easy to understand and manage, very useful for small teams and small
sprints.
4. This is just a core essentials product, and does nothing fancy -- If you
are used to the power of JIRA, you will be disappointed.
5. In my experience, if you are running small focused sprints, this works
well, since you are not trying to deliver 500 closed issues in a release,
but rather less than 100 issues in a sprint.
6. Simple,d gets the job and stays out of the way.
7. Fully integrated, you see the issue, code review, comments, CI,
everything in one place. That is really cool when you look at an issue
later.
Cons --
1. Compared to JIRA -- most of the power is missing -- for example, you
cannot do a burndown chart to see you progress in Github.
2. The powerful tags, expressive power of JIRAs Query language etc, is
completely missing.
Having worked with both, my personal take is that if you are a small
development focused group -- then Github issues are really cool.
But if you are a large org, 100s of developers and program managers
requiring you to steer the boat, well, JIRA is really the tool, and Github
will not cut it.
Having used both systems extensively, I find Github Issues a better tool,
but your mileage will vary.
Thanks
Anu
Ps. I was not aware that a project like K8s can be successfully run using
Github issues -- perhaps the nature of collaboration is very dev
centric and not as much
management focused and Github issues work well. I find the Github issues
really easy, simple and relaxing to use and don't miss the heavy duty
features of JIRA.
But be warned, if you are looking for an equivalent system to JIRA, Github
issues is not it. You will have to be prepared to modify your workflows,
but not in a bad way.
On Sun, Nov 1, 2020 at 10:17 AM Arpit Agarwal <aa...@cloudera.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Looks too unstructured. They are using labels for Issue type and priority.
> I don’t see any priority field either. Not sure it is worth the energy to
> make the switch.
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 2020, at 9:34 AM, Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Good question, I didn't do a research, yet.
> >
> > But I knew that Kubernetes is a heavy Github user and I found it uses
> milestones for versions:
> >
> > https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/milestones
> >
> > Or k3s:
> >
> > https://github.com/rancher/k3d/milestones
> >
> > Marton
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/1/20 5:24 PM, Arpit Agarwal wrote:
> >> Do you have an example of another project using milestones as you're
> suggesting?
> >> ----- Original message -----
> >> From: "Elek, Marton" <el...@apache.org>
> >> To: ozone-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Github issues vs Jira issues
> >> Date: Sunday, November 01, 2020 6:30 AM
> >> Thanks the questions Arpit and Vivek.
> >> I agree with you: the main question is how the existing workflows can be
> >> mapped to the features of github issues.
> >> We need to collect all the used workflows. I checked the two features
> >> which you mentioned:
> >> 1. EPIC
> >> Epics can be managed in Github with created "projects".
> >> For example: https://github.com/elek/hadoop-ozone/projects
> >> Seems to be slightly better than Jira:
> >> 1. It can show all the existing / in-progress epic as a list
> >> 2. It can show a Kanban board for all the epics
> >> 3. Issues can be moved automatically based on the status of the PR.
> >> 2. FIXED VERSION / CUSTOM FIELDS
> >> Yes, custom fields are usually handled by custom labels in Github, which
> >> is slightly weaker.
> >> However you don't need to create label for the fix versions and both
> >> issues and PRs can be assigned to "Milestones"
> >> Milestones are something like the versions and provide a progress view
> >> out-of the box:
> >> https://github.com/elek/hadoop-ozone/milestone/1
> >> Do you have any other features in your mind which should be checked?
> >> Thanks,
> >> Marton
> >> On 10/28/20 5:21 PM, Vivek Ratnavel wrote:
> >>> Also, another thing to note would be that Github issues don't support
> >>> Epics.
> >>>
> >>> We will have to create milestones to track big features and their
> progress
> >>> or use a third-party Github action like this -
> >>> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/epic-issues-for-github.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Vivek Subramanian
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:48 AM Arpit Agarwal
> <aa...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Doesn't look like GitHub issues supports custom fields. Does it
> support
> >>>> basics like resolution/fix version? I checked out Druid's GitHub
> issues,
> >>>> everything seems to be tacked on using labels.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 1:09 AM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The new Apache Ozone project requires new git repositories / issue
> >>>>> tracker / wiki namespaces.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And it seems to be a good opportunity to think about the used issue
> >>>>> tracker / issue workflow.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I suggest to consider using Github for issue tracking and wiki
> instead
> >>>>> of Jira / Confluence.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Advantages:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * Better integration between PRs and issues (and between issues
> and
> >>>>> other Github features)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * Current workflow would be simplified (doesn't require to create
> >>>>> boilerplate Jira issue for each new PR)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * Easier for for contributors (doesn't require to create jira
> user,
> >>>>> request to assign permission to be an assignee...)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * Easier to follow discussions (I know some issues where half of
> the
> >>>>> discussion was under the PR the other half was under the Jira)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * Easier to follow contribution statistics (enough to query
> github api)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Disadvantage:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * Finding / reading old issue still require Jira (but we can
> migrate
> >>>>> the open issues if we need them)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't think it's a big deal as we already have some issues at other
> >>>>> places (for example children of HDFS-7240).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What are your opinions?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note: There are Apache projects which already uses Github instead of
> >>>>> Jira (Superset, Druid and many smaller incubator projects)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Marton
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ozone-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ozone-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Github issues vs Jira issues
Posted by Arpit Agarwal <aa...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
Looks too unstructured. They are using labels for Issue type and priority. I don’t see any priority field either. Not sure it is worth the energy to make the switch.
> On Nov 1, 2020, at 9:34 AM, Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> Good question, I didn't do a research, yet.
>
> But I knew that Kubernetes is a heavy Github user and I found it uses milestones for versions:
>
> https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/milestones
>
> Or k3s:
>
> https://github.com/rancher/k3d/milestones
>
> Marton
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/1/20 5:24 PM, Arpit Agarwal wrote:
>> Do you have an example of another project using milestones as you're suggesting?
>> ----- Original message -----
>> From: "Elek, Marton" <el...@apache.org>
>> To: ozone-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Github issues vs Jira issues
>> Date: Sunday, November 01, 2020 6:30 AM
>> Thanks the questions Arpit and Vivek.
>> I agree with you: the main question is how the existing workflows can be
>> mapped to the features of github issues.
>> We need to collect all the used workflows. I checked the two features
>> which you mentioned:
>> 1. EPIC
>> Epics can be managed in Github with created "projects".
>> For example: https://github.com/elek/hadoop-ozone/projects
>> Seems to be slightly better than Jira:
>> 1. It can show all the existing / in-progress epic as a list
>> 2. It can show a Kanban board for all the epics
>> 3. Issues can be moved automatically based on the status of the PR.
>> 2. FIXED VERSION / CUSTOM FIELDS
>> Yes, custom fields are usually handled by custom labels in Github, which
>> is slightly weaker.
>> However you don't need to create label for the fix versions and both
>> issues and PRs can be assigned to "Milestones"
>> Milestones are something like the versions and provide a progress view
>> out-of the box:
>> https://github.com/elek/hadoop-ozone/milestone/1
>> Do you have any other features in your mind which should be checked?
>> Thanks,
>> Marton
>> On 10/28/20 5:21 PM, Vivek Ratnavel wrote:
>>> Also, another thing to note would be that Github issues don't support
>>> Epics.
>>>
>>> We will have to create milestones to track big features and their progress
>>> or use a third-party Github action like this -
>>> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/epic-issues-for-github.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Vivek Subramanian
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:48 AM Arpit Agarwal <aa...@cloudera.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doesn't look like GitHub issues supports custom fields. Does it support
>>>> basics like resolution/fix version? I checked out Druid's GitHub issues,
>>>> everything seems to be tacked on using labels.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 1:09 AM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> The new Apache Ozone project requires new git repositories / issue
>>>>> tracker / wiki namespaces.
>>>>>
>>>>> And it seems to be a good opportunity to think about the used issue
>>>>> tracker / issue workflow.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest to consider using Github for issue tracking and wiki instead
>>>>> of Jira / Confluence.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Advantages:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Better integration between PRs and issues (and between issues and
>>>>> other Github features)
>>>>>
>>>>> * Current workflow would be simplified (doesn't require to create
>>>>> boilerplate Jira issue for each new PR)
>>>>>
>>>>> * Easier for for contributors (doesn't require to create jira user,
>>>>> request to assign permission to be an assignee...)
>>>>>
>>>>> * Easier to follow discussions (I know some issues where half of the
>>>>> discussion was under the PR the other half was under the Jira)
>>>>>
>>>>> * Easier to follow contribution statistics (enough to query github api)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Disadvantage:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Finding / reading old issue still require Jira (but we can migrate
>>>>> the open issues if we need them)
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think it's a big deal as we already have some issues at other
>>>>> places (for example children of HDFS-7240).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What are your opinions?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: There are Apache projects which already uses Github instead of
>>>>> Jira (Superset, Druid and many smaller incubator projects)
>>>>>
>>>>> Marton
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ozone-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ozone-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Github issues vs Jira issues
Posted by "Elek, Marton" <el...@apache.org>.
Good question, I didn't do a research, yet.
But I knew that Kubernetes is a heavy Github user and I found it uses
milestones for versions:
https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/milestones
Or k3s:
https://github.com/rancher/k3d/milestones
Marton
On 11/1/20 5:24 PM, Arpit Agarwal wrote:
> Do you have an example of another project using milestones as you're suggesting?
>
>
> ----- Original message -----
> From: "Elek, Marton" <el...@apache.org>
> To: ozone-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Github issues vs Jira issues
> Date: Sunday, November 01, 2020 6:30 AM
>
> Thanks the questions Arpit and Vivek.
>
> I agree with you: the main question is how the existing workflows can be
> mapped to the features of github issues.
>
> We need to collect all the used workflows. I checked the two features
> which you mentioned:
>
>
> 1. EPIC
>
> Epics can be managed in Github with created "projects".
>
> For example: https://github.com/elek/hadoop-ozone/projects
>
> Seems to be slightly better than Jira:
>
> 1. It can show all the existing / in-progress epic as a list
> 2. It can show a Kanban board for all the epics
> 3. Issues can be moved automatically based on the status of the PR.
>
>
>
> 2. FIXED VERSION / CUSTOM FIELDS
>
> Yes, custom fields are usually handled by custom labels in Github, which
> is slightly weaker.
>
> However you don't need to create label for the fix versions and both
> issues and PRs can be assigned to "Milestones"
>
> Milestones are something like the versions and provide a progress view
> out-of the box:
>
> https://github.com/elek/hadoop-ozone/milestone/1
>
>
>
> Do you have any other features in your mind which should be checked?
>
> Thanks,
> Marton
>
>
>
> On 10/28/20 5:21 PM, Vivek Ratnavel wrote:
>> Also, another thing to note would be that Github issues don't support
>> Epics.
>>
>> We will have to create milestones to track big features and their progress
>> or use a third-party Github action like this -
>> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/epic-issues-for-github.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Vivek Subramanian
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:48 AM Arpit Agarwal <aa...@cloudera.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Doesn't look like GitHub issues supports custom fields. Does it support
>>> basics like resolution/fix version? I checked out Druid's GitHub issues,
>>> everything seems to be tacked on using labels.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 1:09 AM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The new Apache Ozone project requires new git repositories / issue
>>>> tracker / wiki namespaces.
>>>>
>>>> And it seems to be a good opportunity to think about the used issue
>>>> tracker / issue workflow.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I suggest to consider using Github for issue tracking and wiki instead
>>>> of Jira / Confluence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Advantages:
>>>>
>>>> * Better integration between PRs and issues (and between issues and
>>>> other Github features)
>>>>
>>>> * Current workflow would be simplified (doesn't require to create
>>>> boilerplate Jira issue for each new PR)
>>>>
>>>> * Easier for for contributors (doesn't require to create jira user,
>>>> request to assign permission to be an assignee...)
>>>>
>>>> * Easier to follow discussions (I know some issues where half of the
>>>> discussion was under the PR the other half was under the Jira)
>>>>
>>>> * Easier to follow contribution statistics (enough to query github api)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Disadvantage:
>>>>
>>>> * Finding / reading old issue still require Jira (but we can migrate
>>>> the open issues if we need them)
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it's a big deal as we already have some issues at other
>>>> places (for example children of HDFS-7240).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What are your opinions?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note: There are Apache projects which already uses Github instead of
>>>> Jira (Superset, Druid and many smaller incubator projects)
>>>>
>>>> Marton
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ozone-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ozone-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Github issues vs Jira issues
Posted by Arpit Agarwal <ar...@apache.org>.
Do you have an example of another project using milestones as you're suggesting?
----- Original message -----
From: "Elek, Marton" <el...@apache.org>
To: ozone-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Github issues vs Jira issues
Date: Sunday, November 01, 2020 6:30 AM
Thanks the questions Arpit and Vivek.
I agree with you: the main question is how the existing workflows can be
mapped to the features of github issues.
We need to collect all the used workflows. I checked the two features
which you mentioned:
1. EPIC
Epics can be managed in Github with created "projects".
For example: https://github.com/elek/hadoop-ozone/projects
Seems to be slightly better than Jira:
1. It can show all the existing / in-progress epic as a list
2. It can show a Kanban board for all the epics
3. Issues can be moved automatically based on the status of the PR.
2. FIXED VERSION / CUSTOM FIELDS
Yes, custom fields are usually handled by custom labels in Github, which
is slightly weaker.
However you don't need to create label for the fix versions and both
issues and PRs can be assigned to "Milestones"
Milestones are something like the versions and provide a progress view
out-of the box:
https://github.com/elek/hadoop-ozone/milestone/1
Do you have any other features in your mind which should be checked?
Thanks,
Marton
On 10/28/20 5:21 PM, Vivek Ratnavel wrote:
> Also, another thing to note would be that Github issues don't support
> Epics.
>
> We will have to create milestones to track big features and their progress
> or use a third-party Github action like this -
> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/epic-issues-for-github.
>
> Regards,
> Vivek Subramanian
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:48 AM Arpit Agarwal <aa...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Doesn't look like GitHub issues supports custom fields. Does it support
>> basics like resolution/fix version? I checked out Druid's GitHub issues,
>> everything seems to be tacked on using labels.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 1:09 AM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The new Apache Ozone project requires new git repositories / issue
>>> tracker / wiki namespaces.
>>>
>>> And it seems to be a good opportunity to think about the used issue
>>> tracker / issue workflow.
>>>
>>>
>>> I suggest to consider using Github for issue tracking and wiki instead
>>> of Jira / Confluence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Advantages:
>>>
>>> * Better integration between PRs and issues (and between issues and
>>> other Github features)
>>>
>>> * Current workflow would be simplified (doesn't require to create
>>> boilerplate Jira issue for each new PR)
>>>
>>> * Easier for for contributors (doesn't require to create jira user,
>>> request to assign permission to be an assignee...)
>>>
>>> * Easier to follow discussions (I know some issues where half of the
>>> discussion was under the PR the other half was under the Jira)
>>>
>>> * Easier to follow contribution statistics (enough to query github api)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Disadvantage:
>>>
>>> * Finding / reading old issue still require Jira (but we can migrate
>>> the open issues if we need them)
>>>
>>> I don't think it's a big deal as we already have some issues at other
>>> places (for example children of HDFS-7240).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What are your opinions?
>>>
>>>
>>> Note: There are Apache projects which already uses Github instead of
>>> Jira (Superset, Druid and many smaller incubator projects)
>>>
>>> Marton
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ozone-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ozone-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ozone.apache.org