You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@beam.apache.org by Danny McCormick <da...@google.com> on 2022/05/13 17:05:03 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] Migrate Jira to GitHub Issues?
Hey everyone, I've been building out some tooling for the Jira->Issues
migration and wanted to gather some thoughts/feedback on a few things:
1) Given that this is a significant change for everyone, I'd like to set a
target migration date so that everyone has time to make any necessary
adjustments to their workflows and raise any concerns they still have in
advance. Specifically, I'd like to target June 3 (3 weeks from today). Are
there any objections to that date?
2) We didn't get complete consensus on the value of migrating existing
Jiras. I think this is worthwhile and I built out a migration tool that we
can use (code here <https://github.com/damccorm/jira-to-issues>, PRs
welcome). I ran a test migration and it produced these issues
<https://github.com/damccorm/test-migration-target/issues>, which I think
are pretty high-fidelity versions of the initial Jiras, with a few
limitations*. I'd like to use that tool as part of the migration -
does anyone have objections or +1s to that approach?
*Feel free to ignore below this line if you're not interested in the
migration process/current status*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've included some notes on status and remaining TODOs below - let me know
if you'd like to help out with anything. For those who have already
volunteered to help on docs, please feel free to start putting up PRs
(draft or final) even if they can't be merged until we migrate.
*Completed Work*
- Issue templates have been added
<https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/17588>
- Rather than porting the existing outdated dependency automation, we added
Dependabot (discussion
<https://lists.apache.org/thread/txnmjmr235o2wg8or9wsp0k312cyvmq2>, PR
<https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/17563>)
- Migration tool <https://github.com/damccorm/jira-to-issues> is complete
*Active Work*
- Some GitHub automation for issue management is in PR
<https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/17661>
- Most pre-migration doc changes are ready to go (this PR
<https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/17594> will remain in draft for a
while and will need another pass closer to the migration to resolve
conflicts + catch any other Jira references that are added)
*Remaining Known Migration Blockers*
- Milestones need to be created to map work to releases
*Other Remaining Known Work*
- Day of migration work (turn on issues, turn off new Jiras, run migration
tool, merge documentation updates)
- (post-migration) Community metrics need to be updated to use GitHub
issues instead of jira
<https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/13869515455f43f94404155463eb9e824ab17a4c/.test-infra/metrics/sync/jira/syncjira.py>
- (post-migration) Additional doc updates will be needed to point some
active jira references to issues instead
- (post-migration) Dependency update Jira creation automation needs to be
removed (replaced by Dependabot)
Thanks,
Danny
* The known limitations of the current migration tool are:
1. It links to the original Jira instead of including all comments (which
would probably not be technically feasible because of how GitHub does rate
limits on issue/comment creation)
2. It does not port any of the following: fix version, associated GitHub
PRs, time tracking, dates, or attachments. Some of these may be feasible if
others think they are important, but they all should also be discoverable
by following the link to the original Jira.
3. It only ports open Jiras. This is actually relatively easily tunable,
but it would take a *very *long time to run with all closed Jiras. If we
want this, I'd recommend doing it as part of a 2nd pass post-migration.
4. It takes about 24 hours to run to completion (because of GitHub's rate
limits).
As a note, in my test migration I overrode the issue assignee to be myself
to avoid spamming y'all with test notifications. Almost all active issues
should get correctly mapped to their owners in the real migration using this
mapping function
<https://github.com/damccorm/jira-to-issues/blob/e38c93ee40aa6db11b36fba73ab84157e58e47f5/shared/translate.ts#L252>
.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:47 PM Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <ai...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Thank you for putting this together, Danny! I can help with the label
> creation task.
>
> Anyone else want to help?
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 11:55 AM Danny McCormick <
> dannymccormick@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's a spreadsheet to sign up if you'd like to help with the migration!
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hqztI7ECf8NjcmfQ8ZfUj6OU0U-6orJzhG6OMufmTFE/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Danny
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 1:59 PM Danny McCormick <
>> dannymccormick@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey everyone,
>>>
>>> Aizhamal is currently out for a little bit and asked me to start to put
>>> together a more detailed plan for migrating from Jira to GitHub since we
>>> seem to have consensus here (or close to it). Here's my proposal on a plan
>>> to migrate -
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1powrXGbjMLMYl9ibRzMda5o5HM_p44XvBy5MZu75Q5E/edit?usp=sharing
>>> - I'd really appreciate any feedback or recommendations you have! In
>>> particular, I imagine people will have thoughts on the plan to migrate
>>> Jiras to Issues - I included that as a section and think its worth it, but
>>> others may disagree (or disagree on the fields we care about keeping).
>>>
>>> If anyone is interested in helping with the migration itself, please
>>> chime in as well! We will almost certainly need PMC help for some of the
>>> settings level work, but there's also a decent bit of parallelizable work
>>> available to update templates/documentation, update automation, and help
>>> build/design the issue migrator!
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Danny
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 5:28 PM Sachin Agarwal <sa...@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you! I believe the benefits to make it easier for folks to
>>>> contribute to Beam will pay significant dividends quickly.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 2:09 PM Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
>>>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Awesome, thanks for the feedback everyone. Then I will go ahead, and
>>>>> start documenting the plan in detail and share it here afterwards.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 3:17 PM Alexey Romanenko <
>>>>> aromanenko.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> First of all, many thanks for putting the details into this design
>>>>>> doc and sorry for delay with my response.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’m still quite neutral with this migration because of several
>>>>>> concerns:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Imho, Github Issues is still not well enough mature as an issue
>>>>>> tracker and it doesn’t provide the solutions for all needs as, for example,
>>>>>> Jira and other tracker do (though, seems that there are many features
>>>>>> upcoming). For example, many things in GH Issues still can be resolved only
>>>>>> with “labels" and we can potentially end up with a huge bunch of them with
>>>>>> a different naming policy, mixed purposes and so on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - If we won’t do a transfer of the issues/users/filters/etc from Jira
>>>>>> to GH Issues then, it looks, that we will live with two trackers for some
>>>>>> (unknown) amount of time which is not very convenient (I believe that we
>>>>>> need to specify our workflows with having this).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - If we do a transfer then what kind of tools are going to be used,
>>>>>> how much time it will take - so, we’d need a detailed plan on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other positive hand, for sure, GH Issues has, by design, a
>>>>>> solid integration with other Github services which is, obviously, a huge
>>>>>> advantage for the long term as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In any case, adding (or substitute) a new tool should help us to make
>>>>>> the development process, in general, easier and faster. So I hope we can
>>>>>> achieve this with Github Issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> —
>>>>>> Alexey
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15 Feb 2022, at 06:52, Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <ai...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very humbly, I think the benefits of moving to GitHub Issues
>>>>>> outweigh the shortcomings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jan, Kenn, Alexey, JB: adding you directly as you had some concerns.
>>>>>> Please, let us know if they were addressed by the options that we described
>>>>>> in the doc [1]?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If noone objects, I can start working with some of you on
>>>>>> Migration TODOs outlined in the doc I am referencing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_n7gboVbSKPs-CVcHzADgg8qpNL9igiHqUPCmiOslf0/edit#bookmark=id.izn35w5gsjft
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 1:12 PM Danny McCormick <
>>>>>> dannymccormick@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm definitely +1 on moving to help make the bar for entry lower for
>>>>>>> new contributors (like myself!)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Danny
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 2:32 PM Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
>>>>>>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think we've had a chance to discuss shortcomings and advantages.
>>>>>>>> I think each person may have a different bias / preference. My bias is to
>>>>>>>> move to Github, to have a more inclusive, approachable project despite the
>>>>>>>> differences in workflow. So I'm +1 on moving.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Could others share their bias? Don't think of this as a vote, but
>>>>>>>> I'd like to get a sense of people's preferences, to see if there's a
>>>>>>>> strong/slight feeling either way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, the sticky points are summarized here [1], feel free to add
>>>>>>>> to the doc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_n7gboVbSKPs-CVcHzADgg8qpNL9igiHqUPCmiOslf0/edit#
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 7:23 PM Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
>>>>>>>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Welcome to the Beam community, Danny!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We would love your help if/when we end up migrating.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please add your comments to the doc I shared[1], in case we missed
>>>>>>>>> some cool GH features that could be helpful. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_n7gboVbSKPs-CVcHzADgg8qpNL9igiHqUPCmiOslf0/edit#
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 10:06 AM Danny McCormick <
>>>>>>>>> dannymccormick@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > Then (this is something you'd have to code) you could easily
>>>>>>>>>> write or use an existing GithubAction or bot that will assign the labels
>>>>>>>>>> based on the initial selection done by the user at entry. We have not done
>>>>>>>>>> it yet but we might.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hey, new contributor here - wanted to chime in with a shameless
>>>>>>>>>> plug because I happen to have written an action that does pretty much
>>>>>>>>>> exactly what you're describing[1] and could be extensible to the use case
>>>>>>>>>> discussed here - it should basically just require writing some config
>>>>>>>>>> (example in action[2]). In general, automated management of labels based on
>>>>>>>>>> the initial issue description + content isn't too hard, it does get
>>>>>>>>>> significantly trickier (but definitely still possible) if you try to
>>>>>>>>>> automate labels based on responses or edits.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also, big +1 that the easy integration with Actions is a
>>>>>>>>>> significant advantage of using issues since it helps keep your automations
>>>>>>>>>> in one place (or at least fewer places) and gives you a lot of tools out of
>>>>>>>>>> the box both from the community and from the Actions org.
>>>>>>>>>> *Disclaimer:* I am definitely biased. Until 3 weeks ago I was
>>>>>>>>>> working on the Actions team at GitHub.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd be happy to help with some of the issue automation if we
>>>>>>>>>> decide that would be helpful, whether that's reusing existing work or
>>>>>>>>>> tailoring it more exactly to the Beam use case.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/damccorm/tag-ur-it
>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/microsoft/azure-pipelines-tasks/issues/15839
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Danny
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 12:49 PM Zachary Houfek <
>>>>>>>>>> zhoufek@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> > You can link PR to the issue by just mentioning #Issue in the
>>>>>>>>>>> commit message. If you do not prefix it with "Closes:" "Fixes:" or similar
>>>>>>>>>>> it will be just linked
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, thanks for the clarification there.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Zach
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 12:43 PM Cristian Constantinescu <
>>>>>>>>>>> zeidoo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been semi-following this thread, apologies if this has
>>>>>>>>>>>> been raised already.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From a user point of view, in some corporate environments (that
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've worked at), Github is blocked. That includes the issues part. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Jira is not blocked and does at times provide value while
>>>>>>>>>>>> investigating issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, users stuck in those unfortunate circonstances can
>>>>>>>>>>>> just use their personal device. Not advocating any direction on the matter,
>>>>>>>>>>>> just putting this out there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 12:21 PM Zachary Houfek <
>>>>>>>>>>>> zhoufek@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I added a suggestion that I don't think was discussed here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that we currently can link multiple PRs to a single
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jira, but GitHub assumes a PR linked to an issue fixes the issue. You also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need write access to the repository to link the PR outside of using a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "closing keyword". (For reference: Linking a pull request to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how much this could sway the decisions but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought it was worth bringing up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 12:06 PM Jarek Potiuk <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jarek@potiuk.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just a comment here to clarify the labels from someone who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been using both - ASF (and not only) JIRA and GitHub.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The experience from JIRA labels might be awfully misleading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The JIRA labels are a mess in the ASF because they are shared between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects and everyone can create a new label. "Mess" is actually quite an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understatement IMHO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The labels in GitHub Issues are "per-project" and they can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only be added and modified by maintainers (and only maintainers and "issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triagers" can actually assign them other than the initial assignment when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you create an issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to that, it is much easier to agree on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common "conventions" to use and avoid creating new ones accidentally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have quite a success with using the labels in Airflow as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we use some of the stuff below:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Re - some fancy enforcement/management, yeah. There are good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> techniques to control how/when the labels are attached:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) You can create separate templates for Bugs/Features that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can have different labels pre-assigned. See here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/tree/main/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - this way you can delegate to the users to make basic "label choice" when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they enter issues (though limited - 4-5 types of issues to choose from is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really maximum what is reasonable).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The same "Issue Templates" already have the option to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose "selectable fields" at entry - you can define free-form entries,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drop-down, checkboxes and a few others. This is as close as it can get to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "fields". Then (this is something you'd have to code) you could easily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write or use an existing GithubAction or bot that will assign the labels
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on the initial selection done by the user at entry. We have not done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it yet but we might.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) In PRs you can (and we do that in Airflow) write your bot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or use existing GitHub Actions to automatically select the labels based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "files" that have been changed in the PR: We are doing precisely that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in airflow and it works pretty well:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/.github/boring-cyborg.yml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are in full control, and you can choose the convention
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and approach for the project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are literally hundreds of GitHub Actions out there and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can easily write a new one to manage it and you do not need anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but PR merged to the repository to enable and configure those actions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As maintainers, you do not have to create an INFRA JIRA(ehm!)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets to manage them. You do not have to share anything with other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's my 2 cents :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> J.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 5:45 PM Kenneth Knowles <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenn@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe controversial: I think some things implemented "via
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> labels" shouldn't get full credit so I suggested changing them from green
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to yellow :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's a really big difference between a free-form label
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a field where you know that there is exactly one value and the value is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a limited set of options. For example priorities could be missing,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duplicate (both "P1" and "P2") or invented ("P8") unless labels have the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ability to have some fancy enforcement (I haven't looked at this). Same for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolution status (is "Not a problem" just a label added as commentary or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is it a resolution status?) and issue type (something could be marked "bug"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and "feature request").
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kenn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 8:38 AM Kenneth Knowles <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenn@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great. I added a few items to the "summary of discussion"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even though they weren't discussed here just to identify things that I care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about and how you might do them in GitHub Issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kenn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 6:20 PM Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I summarized the discussion in this document[1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO a lot of the concerns raised can be worked around
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (multiple milestones, components, tags, sub-issues), while the biggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit will be decreasing the barrier for new users to contribute and have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better discoverability and linkage between code, issues and PRs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please assign your priority levels for the various
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features in the comparison table. I left it out because I have a clear bias
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here : )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Next steps would be to decide whether (1) to move, and (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to copy over JIRA issues. IMO, Airflow's approach to not copy everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be the right choice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_n7gboVbSKPs-CVcHzADgg8qpNL9igiHqUPCmiOslf0/edit#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 2:30 PM Brian Hulette <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhulette@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for volunteering to pick this up Aizhamal, while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm interested in this change happening I don't have the bandwidth to push
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it along.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think there was another point where we're missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consensus: how would we deal with existing jiras. Do we write some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automation to port everything, or just flip the switch and encourage
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users/devs to port active jiras over to GitHub?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manual porting pros:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Ambiguous situations get human attention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Tickets with no interested parties will be implicitly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleared out of the backlog.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - No need to write automation for porting tools.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manual porting cons:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Unambiguous situations get (unnecessary) human
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A compromise might be to build a simple tool for porting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jiras, but don't automatically run it on everything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 6:04 AM Kenneth Knowles <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenn@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also think that we are at the point where a document
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describing them side-by-side is needed. I would very much like to help. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strongly support moving to GitHub Issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm less concerned about pros/cons (I think the one big
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pro of "everyone knows it and already has an account" outweighs almost any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> con) but I want to build a very clear plan of how we will map Jira features
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to GitHub features. I use quite a lot of Jira's features. In particular, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of things seem like they'll become conventions around labels, which I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect to often be low enough data quality that we would just not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bother, unless we can control it a bit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I eagerly await the link! Feel free to share very early
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kenn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 1:48 PM Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I am enthusiastic enough to help with the doc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :) will share the link soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:12 AM Robert Bradshaw <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robertwb@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know if we have consensus, but it seems that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite supportive (myself included), and some are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ambivalent. The only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major con I can see is that github doesn't support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tagging an issue to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple milestones (but it's unclear how important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest that someone enthusiastic about this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together a doc where we can enumerate the pros and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cons and once the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list seems complete we can bring it back to the list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for further
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion and/or a vote (if needed, likely not).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 9:27 AM Alexey Romanenko
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I’m not sure that we have a consensus on this. Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this thread initially was started to discuss and gather some feedback then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be great to have a summary with pros and cons of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > —
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Alexey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On 13 Jan 2022, at 00:11, Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Is there a consensus to migrate to GitHub?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 9:17 AM Brian Hulette <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhulette@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 1:14 PM Kenneth Knowles <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> klk@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 11:50 PM Jean-Baptiste
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> No problem for me. The only thing I don’t like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with GitHub issues is that fact that it’s not possible to “assign” several
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> milestones to an issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> When we maintain several active branch/version,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it sucks (one issue == one milestone), as we have to create several issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> This is a good point to consider. In Beam we often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create multiple issues anyhow when we intend to backport/cherrypick a fix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One issue for the original fix and one each targeted cherrypick. This way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their resolution status can be tracked separately. But it is nice for users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be able to go back and edit the original bug report to say which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions are affected and which are not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I looked into this a little bit. It looks like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> milestones don't have to represent a release (e.g. they could represent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some abstract goal), but they are often associated with releases. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems like a reasonable field to map to "Fix Version/s" in jira, but jira
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does support specifying multiple releases. So one issue == one milestone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a regression.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> As Kenn pointed out though we often create a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate jira to track backports anyway (even though we could just specify
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple fix versions), so I'm not sure this is a significant blocker.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> If we want to use milestones to track abstract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goals, I think we'd be out of luck. We could just use labels, but the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GitHub UI doesn't present a nice burndown chart for those. See
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/milestones vs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/labels. FWIW
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira doesn't have great functionality here either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Kenn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > Le 10 déc. 2021 à 01:28, Kyle Weaver <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kcweaver@google.com> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > I’m in favor of switching to Github issues. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can’t think of a single thing jira does better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > Thanks Jarek, this is a really great resource
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. For another reference, the Calcite project is engaged in the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion right now [2]. I came up with many of the same points
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> independently before I saw their thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > When evaluating feature parity, we should make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a distinction between non-structured (text) and structured data. And we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t need a strict mechanical mapping for everything unless we’re planning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on automatically migrating all existing issues. I don’t see the point in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatic migration, though; as Jarek pointed out, we’d end up perpetuating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a ton of obsolete issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > • We use nested issues and issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations in jira, but as far as I know robots don’t use them and we don’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> query them much, so we’re not losing anything by moving from an API to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plain English descriptions: “This issue is blocked by issue #n.” Mentions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show up automatically on other issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > • For component, type, priority, etc., we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can use Github labels.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > • Version(s) affected is used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistently, and as far as I know only by humans, so a simple English
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description is fine. We can follow the example of other projects and make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the version affected a part of the issue template.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > • For fix version, which we use to track
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which issues we want to fix in upcoming releases, as well as automatically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate release notes: Github has “milestones,” which can be marked on PRs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or issues, or both.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > • IMO the automatically generated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JIRA release notes are not especially useful anyway. They are too detailed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a quick summary, and not precise enough to show everything. For a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readable summary, we use CHANGES.md to highlight changes we especially want
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users to know about. For a complete list of changes, there’s the git commit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> log, which is the ultimate source of truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > • We’d only want to preserve reporter and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assignee if we’re planning on migrating everything automatically, and even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I think it’d be fine to compile a map of active contributors and drop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > As for the advantages of switching (just the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones off the top of my head):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > • As others have mentioned, it’s less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burden for new contributors to create new issues and comment on existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > • Effortless linking between issues and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > • Github -> jira links were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working for a short while, but they seem to be broken at the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > • Jira -> github links only show:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “links to GitHub Pull Request #xxxxx”. They don’t say the status of the PR,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you have to follow the link to find out. Especially inconvenient when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one jira maps to several PRs, and you have to open all the links to get a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> summary of what work was done.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > • When you mention a GH issue in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pull request, a link to the PR will automatically appear on the issue,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including not just the ID but also the PR’s description and status
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (open/closed/draft/merged/etc.), and if you hover it will show a preview as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > • We frequently merge a PR and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then forget to mark the jira as closed. Whereas if a PR is linked to a GH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue using the “closes” keyword, the GH issue will automatically be closed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > • I don’t have to look up or guess
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether a github account and jira account belong to the same person.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > • There’s a single unified search bar to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find issues, PRs, and code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > • Github enables markdown formatting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everywhere, which is more or less the industry standard, whereas Jira has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own bespoke system [4].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > • In GH issues, links to Github code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snippets will automatically display the code snippet inline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > • GH labels are scoped to each project,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whereas ASF Jira labels are an unmanageable, infinitely growing namespace
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (see “flake,” “flaky,” “flakey,” “Flaky,” “flaky-test”...).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=191332632
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/calcite-dev/202112.mbox/%3CCAB%3DJe-EuaijDjwb6umU_N2TaqFZawE%2BUbgZAgZYvrgPFypfAYQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > [3]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue#linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue-using-a-keyword
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > [4]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=191332632
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://jira.atlassian.com/secure/WikiRendererHelpAction.jspa?section=all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 9:13 AM Alexey Romanenko
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > Many thanks for details, Jarek!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > Actually, your experience proves that the full
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data transfer is very expensive (if even possible) and not necessary,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially taking the fact that the number of Beam Jira issues is a couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of orders more than Airflow one. So, very likely that we will end up by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> living with two issue trackers, at least for some time, to avoid issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duplications and have an access to old ones. This can be very confusing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > In the same time, except the argument of “one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tool for everything”, which is quite strong for sure, I don’t see any other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advantages of GH issues over Jira issues. Also, the more important is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to lose what we have for now, as Jan mentioned below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > So, my vote for now is -0 since it has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant pros and cons and the final impact is not evident.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > —
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > Alexey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > On 8 Dec 2021, at 01:38, Jarek Potiuk <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jarek@potiuk.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> Do I understand correctly that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition (if it will happen) includes the transfer of all Beam Jira
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> archive to GitHub issues with a proper statuses/comments/refs/etc? If not,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what are the options?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > Suggestion from the experience of Airflow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again - you can look it up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > in our notes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > We've tried it initially to copy the issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manually or in bulk, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > eventually we decided to tap into the wisdom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and cooperation of our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > community.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > We migrated some (not many) important things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only and asked our users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > to move the important issues if they think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > relevant/important to them. We closed the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JIRA for entry and left the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > issues in JIRA in read-only state so that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could always refer to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > them if needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > So rather than proactively copy the issues,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we asked the users to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > the decision which issues are important to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them and proactively move
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > it and we left an option of reactive moving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if someone came back to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > the issue later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > That turned out to be a smart decision
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering the effort it would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > require to smartly move the issues vs. the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results achieved. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > helped us to clean some "stale/useless/not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important" issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > We've had 1719 open JIRA issues when we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrated. Over the course of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > ~1.5 years (since about April 2020) we've had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~140 issues that refer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > to any of the JIRA issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed+%22https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%22+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > Currently we have > 4500 GH issues (3700
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closed, 800 opened).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > This means that roughly speaking only < 10%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of original open JIRA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > issues were actually somewhat valuable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (roughly speaking of course)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > and they were < 5% of today's numbers. Of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course some of the new GH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > issues duplicated those JIRA ones. But not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many I think, especially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > that those issues in JIRA referred mostly to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> older Airflow versions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > One more comment for the migration - I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STRONGLY recommend using well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > designed templates for GH issues from day
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one. That significantly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > improves the quality of issues - and using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Discussions as the place
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > where you move unclear/not reproducible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues (and for example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > guiding users to use discussions if they have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no clearly reproducible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > case). This significantly reduces the "bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue overload" (see also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > more detailed comments in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=191332632
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > I personally think a well designed issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entry process for new issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > is more important than migrating old issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in bulk. Especially if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > will ask users to help - as they will have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make a structured entry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > with potentially more detailed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information/reproducibility) or they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > will decide themselves that opening a github
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion is better than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > opening an issue if they do not have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reproducible case. Or they will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > give up if too much information is needed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (but this means that their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > issue is essentially not that important IMHO).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > But this is just friendly advice from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience of those who did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > it quite some time ago :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > J.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 1:08 AM Brian Hulette <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhulette@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> At this point I just wanted to see if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community is interested in such a change or if there are any hard blockers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we do go down this path I think we should port jiras over to GH Issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're right this isn't trivial, there's no ready-made solution we can use,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we'd need to decide on a mapping for everything and write a tool to do the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migration. It sounds like there may be other work in this area we can build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on (e.g. Airflow may have made a tool we can work from?).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> I honestly don't have much experience with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GH Issues so I can't provide concrete examples of better usability (maybe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek can?). From my perspective:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> - I hear a lot of grumbling about jira, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of praise for GitHub Issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> - Most new users/contributors already have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GitHub account, and very few already have an ASF account. It sounds silly,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I'm sure this is a barrier for engaging with the community. Filing an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue, or commenting on one to provide additional context, or asking a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clarifying question about a starter task should be very quick and easy - I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet a lot of these interactions are blocked at the jira registration page.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> Brian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 9:04 AM Alexey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romanenko <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>> Do I understand correctly that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition (if it will happen) includes the transfer of all Beam Jira
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> archive to GitHub issues with a proper statuses/comments/refs/etc? If not,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what are the options?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>> Since this transfer looks quite complicated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the first glance, what are the real key advantages (some concrete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples are very appreciated) to initiate this process and what are the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show-stoppers for us with a current Jira workflow?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>> —
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>> Alexey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>> On 6 Dec 2021, at 19:48, Udi Meiri <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ehudm@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>> +1 on migrating to GH issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>> We will need to update our release process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully it'll make it simpler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>> On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 2:35 AM Jarek Potiuk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> Just to add a comment on those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements Kenneth, looking into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> near future.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> Soon GitHub issues will open for GA a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole new way of interacting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> with the issues (without removing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current way) which will greatly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> improve iI think all aspects of what You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned). The issues (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> associated projects) will gain new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> * structured metadata that you will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to define (much better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> than unstructured labels)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> * table-like visualisations which will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow for fast, bulk,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> keyboard-driven management
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> * better automation of workflows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> * complete APIs to manage the issues (good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for GitHub Actions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> integration for example)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> Re: assigning by non-committers is one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the things that won't work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> currently. Only comitters can assign the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues, and only if a user
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> commented on the issue. But it nicely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works - when a user comments "I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> want to work on that issue", a committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assigns the user. And It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> could be easily automated as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> You can see what it will is about here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/features/issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> They are currently at the "Public Beta"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and heading towards General
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> Availability, but it is not available to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "open" projects yet. However
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> I have a promise from the GitHub Product
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manager (my friend heads the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> team implementing it) that ASF will be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first on the list when the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> public projects will be enabled, because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it looks like it will make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> our triaging and organisation much better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> J.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 1:46 AM Kenneth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Knowles <ke...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> This sounds really good to me. Much more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> familiar to newcomers. I think we end up doing a lot more ad hoc stuff with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> labels, yes? Probably worth having a specific plan. Things I care about:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> - priorities with documented meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> - targeting issues to future releases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> - basic visualizations (mainly total vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open issues over time)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> - tags / components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> - editing/assigning by non-committers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> - workflow supporting "needs triage"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (default) -> open -> resolved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> I think a lot of the above is done via ad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hoc labels but I'm not sure if there are other fancy ways to do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> Anyhow we should switch even if there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a feature gap for the sake of community.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> Kenn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 3:06 PM David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Huntsperger <dh...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> Yes, please. I can help clean up the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> website issues as part of a migration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 1:46 PM Robert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Burke <ro...@frantil.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> Similar thing happened for Go migrating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use GH issues for everything from Language Feature proposals to bugs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Much easier than the very gerrit driven process it was before, and User
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Discussions are far more discoverable by users: they usually already have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GH account, and don't need to create a new separate one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> GitHub does seem to permit user
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directed templates for issues so we can simplify issue triage by users: Eg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for Go there are a number of requests one can make:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/golang/go/issues/new/choose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021, 12:17 PM Andy Ye <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yeandy@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> Chiming in from the perspective of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new Beam contributor. +1 on Github issues. I feel like it would be easier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to learn about and contribute to existing issues/bugs if it were tracked in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same place as that of the source code, rather than bouncing back and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forth between the two different sites.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 1:18 PM Jarek
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> Comment from a friendly outsider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> TL; DR; Yes. Do migrate. Highly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommended.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> There were already similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions happening recently (community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> and infra mailing lists) and as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result I captured Airflow's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> experiences and recommendations in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the BUILD wiki. You might find some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> hints and suggestions to follow as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well as our experiences at Airflow:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=191332632
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> J,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 7:46 PM Brian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hulette <bh...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I wanted to start a discussion to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gauge interest on moving our issue tracking from the ASF Jira to GitHub
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Pros:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> + GH Issues is more discoverable and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approachable for new users and contributors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> + For contributors at Google: we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have tooling to integrate GH Issues with internal issue tracking, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would help us be more accountable (Full disclosure: this is the reason I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started thinking about this).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Cons:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - GH Issues can't be linked to jiras
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for other ASF projects (I don't think we do this often in jira anyway).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - We would likely need to do a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one-time migration of jiras to GH Issues, and update any processes or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automation built on jira (e.g. release notes).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Anything else?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I've always thought that using ASF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jira was a hard requirement for Apache projects, but that is not the case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other Apache projects are using GitHub Issues today, for example the Arrow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DataFusion sub-project uses GitHub issues now [1,2] and Airflow migrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from jira [3] to GitHub issues [4].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/w3dr1vlt9115r3x9m7bprmo4zpnog483
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [3]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/AIRFLOW/issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [4]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zachary Houfek
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DataPLS PLAT
>>>>>>>>>>>>> zhoufek@google.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Zachary Houfek
>>>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer
>>>>>>>>>>> DataPLS PLAT
>>>>>>>>>>> zhoufek@google.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>