You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@juneau.apache.org by James Bognar <ja...@salesforce.com> on 2016/06/28 13:56:01 UTC
[VOTE] - Which bug tracking system should we be using.
Our choices are....
- Bugzilla
- Jira
- GitHub Issues
Jira is officially supported by ASF and a Jira repository has already been
set up. However, GitHub issues is also allowed and may be simpler to use
and more commonly used in the future. Bugzilla is slowly going away.
To vote, put [-1](opposed), [0] (no preference), or [1](support) next to
each choice...
My vote...
- Bugzilla [-1]
- Jira [0]
- GitHub Issues [0]
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:51 AM, James Bognar <ja...@salesforce.com>
wrote:
> My vote:
>
> [0] - No preference either way.
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <
> jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's definitely a matter of preference. How about a vote?
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:47 PM, James Bognar
>> <ja...@salesforce.com> wrote:
>> > My $.02.
>> >
>> > Using GitHub Issues sounds appealing. But something feels strange about
>> > using GitHub for bugs but not SCM.
>> >
>> > I'm leaning slightly towards using GitHub Issues. GitHub seems to be
>> > taking over the world. But I don't feel strongly about it since I'm
>> really
>> > unfamiliar with either right now. I'll be okay with whatever the
>> community
>> > decides.
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
>> > Date: Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:05 AM
>> > Subject: Re: Juneau Project Bootstrap
>> > To: private@juneau.incubator.apache.org
>> > Cc: Peter Haumer <ph...@us.ibm.com>, "craig.russell@oracle.com" <
>> > craig.russell@oracle.com>, Craig Chaney <cc...@salesforce.com>,
>> "John D.
>> > Ament" <jo...@apache.org>, James Bognar <
>> james.bognar@salesforce.com>,
>> > david.goddard@uk.ibm.com, Brian Laskey <bl...@us.ibm.com>, Min
>> Idzelis <
>> > midzelis@salesforce.com>
>> >
>> >
>> > Let's continue this discussion on dev@juneau.incubator.apache.org.
>> (you can
>> > sign up before you have signed ICLA and get @apache.org address)
>> >
>> > On 28 Jun 2016 6:46 a.m., "Jochen Wiedmann" <jo...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Peter Haumer <ph...@us.ibm.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hello.
>> >>> Speaking of tools, can we continue developing on GitHub and then push
>> >>> commits over in batch to the Apache Git for releases?
>> >>>
>> >>> I see on the incubator page that there is an entry for using JIRA,
>> which
>> >>> is a commercially licensed product and a direct competitor to the
>> product
>> >>> in which this library was originally developed. Is using that really
>> >>> required or can we continue with GitHub issues as well?
>> >>>
>> >>> AFAIK, Infra is still only supporting ASF Git as the primary
>> repository,
>> >> and Git as a mirror. I believe, this is, what John requested.
>> >>
>> >> I think, this means, that you will be required to download pull
>> requests
>> >> from GitHub as a file before applying them. However, that inconvenience
>> >> should be acceptable, IMO.
>> >>
>> >> As an exception from that rule. I have read, just yesterday, that it
>> >> should now be acceptable, if Juneau decides *not* to use the ASF Jira
>> for
>> >> bug reports, and use GitHub issues instead. My personal impression is,
>> that
>> >> this wouldn't really be an advantage, because tool support for Jira is
>> much
>> >> better than for Github. OTOH, GitHub might be more attractive for
>> users.
>> >>
>> >> Again, John should be able to tell about details.
>> >>
>> >> Jochen
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > James Bognar
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>>
>>
>> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>>
>
>
>
> --
> James Bognar
>
--
James Bognar
Re: [VOTE] - Which bug tracking system should we be using.
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
The difference is that the committers won't have write access to
https://github.com/apache/incubator-juneau/ (once set up/transferred)
- this is because the git-mirroring from git-wip-us.apache.org is one
way.
Once set up, committers will pull/push using the remote
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-juneau.git - and
there's an "asfbot" that mirrors this directly to
https://github.com/apache/incubator-juneau/ in seconds - for
non-committers they can use GitHub as before with forks and pull
requests.
We can ask to set up the bot so that if a pull request is raised, an
email is sent to dev@juneau. The email contains instructions on how a
committer can merge (basically running git pull and git push). This
bot will also copy over any comments from the GitHub PR to the list -
so committers can respond to the PR on GitHub, but still involve the
list. In the other direction, responses from the list mirrored
through to GitHub should in theory work, but it's unfortunately not
too reliable at the moment.
Example pull request on dev@taverna: https://s.apache.org/ex-pull-request
GitHub Issues could in theory be supported the same way, but the
problem is that the Juneau folks won't have admin-access to it on
GitHub, so won't be able to Close, Assign, set labels, etc. It is
also nice to be able to manage the admin to the tracker separately, as
we can do in https://issues.apache.org/jira/ - e.g. you can give a
potential committer "Contributor" access in Jira so she can assign
issues to herself. Jira integrates well with the email list -
although its email notifications can be a bit noisy and perhaps not as
smooth as GitHub's email integration.
Example Jira email on dev@jena: https://s.apache.org/jira-ex
On 28 June 2016 at 19:40, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Peter Haumer <ph...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> So I propose to work legally correct by committers committing to Apache's
>> git first, but then also to push to Github and to manage issues there in
>> the larger community.
>>
>
> No need for an additional push: That's done automatically by the mirroring
> software.
>
> Jochen
>
>
>>
>>
>
>>
>> --
>> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>>
>>
>> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
Re: [VOTE] - Which bug tracking system should we be using.
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Peter Haumer <ph...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> So I propose to work legally correct by committers committing to Apache's
> git first, but then also to push to Github and to manage issues there in
> the larger community.
>
No need for an additional push: That's done automatically by the mirroring
software.
Jochen
>
>
>
> --
> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>
>
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
Re: [VOTE] - Which bug tracking system should we be using.
Posted by Peter Haumer <ph...@us.ibm.com>.
I like that GitHub is this massive open community where anyone can fork the
project and work on their own contributions. We can see who has forked and
what they are working on and people get their commits counted towards their
own personal stats, which motivates them to contribute even more as many
organizations look at peoples GitHub records now when they are hiring. So
I propose to work legally correct by committers committing to Apache's git
first, but then also to push to Github and to manage issues there in the
larger community.
Bugzilla [1]
Jira[-1]
GitHub Issues [1]
Thanks and best regards,
Peter Haumer.
______________________________________________________________
PETER HAUMER, Dr. rer. nat.
IBM zSystems Software
______________________________________________________________
From: Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>
To: dev@juneau.incubator.apache.org
Date: 06/28/2016 08:43 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] - Which bug tracking system should we be using.
Bugzilla [1]
Jira[1]
GitHub Issues [0]
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:56 PM, James Bognar
<ja...@salesforce.com> wrote:
> Our choices are....
>
> - Bugzilla
> - Jira
> - GitHub Issues
>
> Jira is officially supported by ASF and a Jira repository has already
been
> set up. However, GitHub issues is also allowed and may be simpler to use
> and more commonly used in the future. Bugzilla is slowly going away.
>
> To vote, put [-1](opposed), [0] (no preference), or [1](support) next to
> each choice...
>
> My vote...
> - Bugzilla [-1]
> - Jira [0]
> - GitHub Issues [0]
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:51 AM, James Bognar
<ja...@salesforce.com>
> wrote:
>
>> My vote:
>>
>> [0] - No preference either way.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <
>> jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's definitely a matter of preference. How about a vote?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:47 PM, James Bognar
>>> <ja...@salesforce.com> wrote:
>>> > My $.02.
>>> >
>>> > Using GitHub Issues sounds appealing. But something feels strange
about
>>> > using GitHub for bugs but not SCM.
>>> >
>>> > I'm leaning slightly towards using GitHub Issues. GitHub seems to be
>>> > taking over the world. But I don't feel strongly about it since I'm
>>> really
>>> > unfamiliar with either right now. I'll be okay with whatever the
>>> community
>>> > decides.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> > From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
>>> > Date: Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:05 AM
>>> > Subject: Re: Juneau Project Bootstrap
>>> > To: private@juneau.incubator.apache.org
>>> > Cc: Peter Haumer <ph...@us.ibm.com>, "craig.russell@oracle.com" <
>>> > craig.russell@oracle.com>, Craig Chaney <cc...@salesforce.com>,
>>> "John D.
>>> > Ament" <jo...@apache.org>, James Bognar <
>>> james.bognar@salesforce.com>,
>>> > david.goddard@uk.ibm.com, Brian Laskey <bl...@us.ibm.com>, Min
>>> Idzelis <
>>> > midzelis@salesforce.com>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Let's continue this discussion on dev@juneau.incubator.apache.org.
>>> (you can
>>> > sign up before you have signed ICLA and get @apache.org address)
>>> >
>>> > On 28 Jun 2016 6:46 a.m., "Jochen Wiedmann"
<jo...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Peter Haumer <ph...@us.ibm.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Hello.
>>> >>> Speaking of tools, can we continue developing on GitHub and then
push
>>> >>> commits over in batch to the Apache Git for releases?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I see on the incubator page that there is an entry for using JIRA,
>>> which
>>> >>> is a commercially licensed product and a direct competitor to the
>>> product
>>> >>> in which this library was originally developed. Is using that
really
>>> >>> required or can we continue with GitHub issues as well?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> AFAIK, Infra is still only supporting ASF Git as the primary
>>> repository,
>>> >> and Git as a mirror. I believe, this is, what John requested.
>>> >>
>>> >> I think, this means, that you will be required to download pull
>>> requests
>>> >> from GitHub as a file before applying them. However, that
inconvenience
>>> >> should be acceptable, IMO.
>>> >>
>>> >> As an exception from that rule. I have read, just yesterday, that it
>>> >> should now be acceptable, if Juneau decides *not* to use the ASF
Jira
>>> for
>>> >> bug reports, and use GitHub issues instead. My personal impression
is,
>>> that
>>> >> this wouldn't really be an advantage, because tool support for Jira
is
>>> much
>>> >> better than for Github. OTOH, GitHub might be more attractive for
>>> users.
>>> >>
>>> >> Again, John should be able to tell about details.
>>> >>
>>> >> Jochen
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > James Bognar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>>>
>>>
>>>
http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> James Bognar
>>
>
>
>
> --
> James Bognar
--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
Re: [VOTE] - Which bug tracking system should we be using.
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
Bugzilla [1]
Jira[1]
GitHub Issues [0]
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:56 PM, James Bognar
<ja...@salesforce.com> wrote:
> Our choices are....
>
> - Bugzilla
> - Jira
> - GitHub Issues
>
> Jira is officially supported by ASF and a Jira repository has already been
> set up. However, GitHub issues is also allowed and may be simpler to use
> and more commonly used in the future. Bugzilla is slowly going away.
>
> To vote, put [-1](opposed), [0] (no preference), or [1](support) next to
> each choice...
>
> My vote...
> - Bugzilla [-1]
> - Jira [0]
> - GitHub Issues [0]
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:51 AM, James Bognar <ja...@salesforce.com>
> wrote:
>
>> My vote:
>>
>> [0] - No preference either way.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <
>> jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's definitely a matter of preference. How about a vote?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:47 PM, James Bognar
>>> <ja...@salesforce.com> wrote:
>>> > My $.02.
>>> >
>>> > Using GitHub Issues sounds appealing. But something feels strange about
>>> > using GitHub for bugs but not SCM.
>>> >
>>> > I'm leaning slightly towards using GitHub Issues. GitHub seems to be
>>> > taking over the world. But I don't feel strongly about it since I'm
>>> really
>>> > unfamiliar with either right now. I'll be okay with whatever the
>>> community
>>> > decides.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> > From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
>>> > Date: Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:05 AM
>>> > Subject: Re: Juneau Project Bootstrap
>>> > To: private@juneau.incubator.apache.org
>>> > Cc: Peter Haumer <ph...@us.ibm.com>, "craig.russell@oracle.com" <
>>> > craig.russell@oracle.com>, Craig Chaney <cc...@salesforce.com>,
>>> "John D.
>>> > Ament" <jo...@apache.org>, James Bognar <
>>> james.bognar@salesforce.com>,
>>> > david.goddard@uk.ibm.com, Brian Laskey <bl...@us.ibm.com>, Min
>>> Idzelis <
>>> > midzelis@salesforce.com>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Let's continue this discussion on dev@juneau.incubator.apache.org.
>>> (you can
>>> > sign up before you have signed ICLA and get @apache.org address)
>>> >
>>> > On 28 Jun 2016 6:46 a.m., "Jochen Wiedmann" <jo...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Peter Haumer <ph...@us.ibm.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Hello.
>>> >>> Speaking of tools, can we continue developing on GitHub and then push
>>> >>> commits over in batch to the Apache Git for releases?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I see on the incubator page that there is an entry for using JIRA,
>>> which
>>> >>> is a commercially licensed product and a direct competitor to the
>>> product
>>> >>> in which this library was originally developed. Is using that really
>>> >>> required or can we continue with GitHub issues as well?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> AFAIK, Infra is still only supporting ASF Git as the primary
>>> repository,
>>> >> and Git as a mirror. I believe, this is, what John requested.
>>> >>
>>> >> I think, this means, that you will be required to download pull
>>> requests
>>> >> from GitHub as a file before applying them. However, that inconvenience
>>> >> should be acceptable, IMO.
>>> >>
>>> >> As an exception from that rule. I have read, just yesterday, that it
>>> >> should now be acceptable, if Juneau decides *not* to use the ASF Jira
>>> for
>>> >> bug reports, and use GitHub issues instead. My personal impression is,
>>> that
>>> >> this wouldn't really be an advantage, because tool support for Jira is
>>> much
>>> >> better than for Github. OTOH, GitHub might be more attractive for
>>> users.
>>> >>
>>> >> Again, John should be able to tell about details.
>>> >>
>>> >> Jochen
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > James Bognar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> James Bognar
>>
>
>
>
> --
> James Bognar
--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
Re: [VOTE] - Which bug tracking system should we be using.
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:42 AM Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 4:00 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I just want to make sure we're level setting here. GitHub issues is not
> an
> > option right now. We can poll infra to see when it is an option, but
> right
> > now its not.
>
> Hi, John,
>
> I believe to recall that you were quoting a precedence just yesterday?
>
No, not at all. I'm not currently comfortable w/ what PonyMail is doing,
and believe that the person being quoted was only speaking from a legal
standpoint, not from an infra standpoint.
>
> Jochen
>
>
> --
> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>
>
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>
Re: [VOTE] - Which bug tracking system should we be using.
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 4:00 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> I just want to make sure we're level setting here. GitHub issues is not an
> option right now. We can poll infra to see when it is an option, but right
> now its not.
Hi, John,
I believe to recall that you were quoting a precedence just yesterday?
Jochen
--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
Re: [VOTE] - Which bug tracking system should we be using.
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
James,
I just want to make sure we're level setting here. GitHub issues is not an
option right now. We can poll infra to see when it is an option, but right
now its not.
John
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:56 AM James Bognar <ja...@salesforce.com>
wrote:
> Our choices are....
>
> - Bugzilla
> - Jira
> - GitHub Issues
>
> Jira is officially supported by ASF and a Jira repository has already been
> set up. However, GitHub issues is also allowed and may be simpler to use
> and more commonly used in the future. Bugzilla is slowly going away.
>
> To vote, put [-1](opposed), [0] (no preference), or [1](support) next to
> each choice...
>
> My vote...
> - Bugzilla [-1]
> - Jira [0]
> - GitHub Issues [0]
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:51 AM, James Bognar <james.bognar@salesforce.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > My vote:
> >
> > [0] - No preference either way.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <
> > jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It's definitely a matter of preference. How about a vote?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:47 PM, James Bognar
> >> <ja...@salesforce.com> wrote:
> >> > My $.02.
> >> >
> >> > Using GitHub Issues sounds appealing. But something feels strange
> about
> >> > using GitHub for bugs but not SCM.
> >> >
> >> > I'm leaning slightly towards using GitHub Issues. GitHub seems to be
> >> > taking over the world. But I don't feel strongly about it since I'm
> >> really
> >> > unfamiliar with either right now. I'll be okay with whatever the
> >> community
> >> > decides.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> > From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
> >> > Date: Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:05 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: Juneau Project Bootstrap
> >> > To: private@juneau.incubator.apache.org
> >> > Cc: Peter Haumer <ph...@us.ibm.com>, "craig.russell@oracle.com" <
> >> > craig.russell@oracle.com>, Craig Chaney <cc...@salesforce.com>,
> >> "John D.
> >> > Ament" <jo...@apache.org>, James Bognar <
> >> james.bognar@salesforce.com>,
> >> > david.goddard@uk.ibm.com, Brian Laskey <bl...@us.ibm.com>, Min
> >> Idzelis <
> >> > midzelis@salesforce.com>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Let's continue this discussion on dev@juneau.incubator.apache.org.
> >> (you can
> >> > sign up before you have signed ICLA and get @apache.org address)
> >> >
> >> > On 28 Jun 2016 6:46 a.m., "Jochen Wiedmann" <
> jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Peter Haumer <ph...@us.ibm.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Hello.
> >> >>> Speaking of tools, can we continue developing on GitHub and then
> push
> >> >>> commits over in batch to the Apache Git for releases?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I see on the incubator page that there is an entry for using JIRA,
> >> which
> >> >>> is a commercially licensed product and a direct competitor to the
> >> product
> >> >>> in which this library was originally developed. Is using that really
> >> >>> required or can we continue with GitHub issues as well?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> AFAIK, Infra is still only supporting ASF Git as the primary
> >> repository,
> >> >> and Git as a mirror. I believe, this is, what John requested.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think, this means, that you will be required to download pull
> >> requests
> >> >> from GitHub as a file before applying them. However, that
> inconvenience
> >> >> should be acceptable, IMO.
> >> >>
> >> >> As an exception from that rule. I have read, just yesterday, that it
> >> >> should now be acceptable, if Juneau decides *not* to use the ASF Jira
> >> for
> >> >> bug reports, and use GitHub issues instead. My personal impression
> is,
> >> that
> >> >> this wouldn't really be an advantage, because tool support for Jira
> is
> >> much
> >> >> better than for Github. OTOH, GitHub might be more attractive for
> >> users.
> >> >>
> >> >> Again, John should be able to tell about details.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jochen
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > James Bognar
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Bognar
> >
>
>
>
> --
> James Bognar
>
Re: [VOTE] - Which bug tracking system should we be using.
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Ok, and I mucked up as well. In my haste of processing JIRA tickets for
the bootstrap, I requested a JIRA project. We don't have to use it, but I
would like to see the discussion continue on.
John
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 9:25 AM James Bognar <ja...@salesforce.com>
wrote:
> Thanks Stian. I guess this vote thread morphed into a discussion. I
> didn't anticipate such a lively discussion. :-)
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:52 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On 28 June 2016 at 14:56, James Bognar <ja...@salesforce.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > To vote, put [-1](opposed), [0] (no preference), or [1](support) next
> to
> > > each choice...
> >
> > While the use of -1/0/+1 is how I would expect, I think it's premature
> > to start a formal [VOTE] before the options have been discussed
> > informally (as we seem to be doing in the rest of this thread). It's
> > common to first do a [DISCUSS], and only resort to a [VOTE] if
> > consensus can't be made. [1]
> >
> > This also helps to keep the actual [VOTE] thread clean. A long [VOTE]
> > discussion tends to scare people away from voting.
> >
> >
> > [VOTE]s are however required for two things:
> >
> > 1) Releases [2], which must be open for 72 hours, have +3 "binding"
> > votes from Juneau PPMC members and more positive than negative. (and
> > while in the incubator, +3 incubator IPMC members/mentors)
> >
> > and
> >
> > 2) Accepting new committers and/or PPMC members (this is done on
> > private@juneau for obvious reasons)
> >
> >
> > But for both it's good to have an informal email first to feel the
> > mood, e.g. "Are we in a good shape to do a release? Anything
> > outstanding? I'm willing to be the Release Manager, and will start
> > preparing a Release Candidate on Wednesday unless I hear otherwise. "
> > -- or (on private@) "I'm thinking of suggesting Alice W. Land as a
> > committer, she has contributed many patches and seem to have a good
> > understanding. What do you think?"
> >
> >
> > For other situations, it can often be suitable to do a "Lazy
> > consensus", e.g. "I want to change Juneau to use Java 8, this is a
> > Lazy Consensus vote that passes in 72 hours if no negative votes are
> > received.". [3]
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > [2] https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
> > [3] http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#decision-making
> >
>
>
>
> --
> James Bognar
>
Re: [VOTE] - Which bug tracking system should we be using.
Posted by James Bognar <ja...@salesforce.com>.
Thanks Stian. I guess this vote thread morphed into a discussion. I
didn't anticipate such a lively discussion. :-)
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:52 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On 28 June 2016 at 14:56, James Bognar <ja...@salesforce.com>
> wrote:
>
> > To vote, put [-1](opposed), [0] (no preference), or [1](support) next to
> > each choice...
>
> While the use of -1/0/+1 is how I would expect, I think it's premature
> to start a formal [VOTE] before the options have been discussed
> informally (as we seem to be doing in the rest of this thread). It's
> common to first do a [DISCUSS], and only resort to a [VOTE] if
> consensus can't be made. [1]
>
> This also helps to keep the actual [VOTE] thread clean. A long [VOTE]
> discussion tends to scare people away from voting.
>
>
> [VOTE]s are however required for two things:
>
> 1) Releases [2], which must be open for 72 hours, have +3 "binding"
> votes from Juneau PPMC members and more positive than negative. (and
> while in the incubator, +3 incubator IPMC members/mentors)
>
> and
>
> 2) Accepting new committers and/or PPMC members (this is done on
> private@juneau for obvious reasons)
>
>
> But for both it's good to have an informal email first to feel the
> mood, e.g. "Are we in a good shape to do a release? Anything
> outstanding? I'm willing to be the Release Manager, and will start
> preparing a Release Candidate on Wednesday unless I hear otherwise. "
> -- or (on private@) "I'm thinking of suggesting Alice W. Land as a
> committer, she has contributed many patches and seem to have a good
> understanding. What do you think?"
>
>
> For other situations, it can often be suitable to do a "Lazy
> consensus", e.g. "I want to change Juneau to use Java 8, this is a
> Lazy Consensus vote that passes in 72 hours if no negative votes are
> received.". [3]
>
>
>
> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> [2] https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
> [3] http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#decision-making
>
--
James Bognar
Re: [VOTE] - Which bug tracking system should we be using.
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
On 28 June 2016 at 14:56, James Bognar <ja...@salesforce.com> wrote:
> To vote, put [-1](opposed), [0] (no preference), or [1](support) next to
> each choice...
While the use of -1/0/+1 is how I would expect, I think it's premature
to start a formal [VOTE] before the options have been discussed
informally (as we seem to be doing in the rest of this thread). It's
common to first do a [DISCUSS], and only resort to a [VOTE] if
consensus can't be made. [1]
This also helps to keep the actual [VOTE] thread clean. A long [VOTE]
discussion tends to scare people away from voting.
[VOTE]s are however required for two things:
1) Releases [2], which must be open for 72 hours, have +3 "binding"
votes from Juneau PPMC members and more positive than negative. (and
while in the incubator, +3 incubator IPMC members/mentors)
and
2) Accepting new committers and/or PPMC members (this is done on
private@juneau for obvious reasons)
But for both it's good to have an informal email first to feel the
mood, e.g. "Are we in a good shape to do a release? Anything
outstanding? I'm willing to be the Release Manager, and will start
preparing a Release Candidate on Wednesday unless I hear otherwise. "
-- or (on private@) "I'm thinking of suggesting Alice W. Land as a
committer, she has contributed many patches and seem to have a good
understanding. What do you think?"
For other situations, it can often be suitable to do a "Lazy
consensus", e.g. "I want to change Juneau to use Java 8, this is a
Lazy Consensus vote that passes in 72 hours if no negative votes are
received.". [3]
[1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
[2] https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
[3] http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#decision-making