You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@fluo.apache.org by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> on 2016/06/08 15:41:52 UTC
JIRA vs Github Issues
I spoke w/ INFRA on Hipchat and got some more info[1]. So we will not be
able to close issue on GH and there is no timeline on when we would be able
to. Given this we need to decide if we would like to use GH issues or
JIRA. Also we can transfer the existing project to Apache and not use GH
issues.
I am leaning towards using Jira. Not being able to close issues could be a
pain.
[1]:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11901?focusedCommentId=15320755&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15320755
Re: JIRA vs Github Issues
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
Keith Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Keith Turner<ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Josh Elser<jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Josh Elser wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Keith Turner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> <mentor_hat>If INFRA can do the GH transition now, let's go ahead
>>>>>> and do
>>>>>>> it. It seems like the consensus has already been reached that GH>>
>>>>>> JIRA
>>>>>>> and INFRA has not directly persuaded against GH per your last
>>>>>> messages,
>>>>>>> Keith. Let's take action now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Ok yeah, based on Mike and Christopher's past messages its pretty clear
>>>>> that they are in favor. I will update the INFRA issue and try to
>>>>> figure out
>>>>> the next step.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks for driving, Keith, and sorry for not taking more action myself
>>>> to push this :)
>>>>
>>> Any update? How can I help?
>>>
>> I don't know. At this point waiting on INFRA. I dropped into hipchat and
>> stated we had finalized our decision and updated the issue. I asked if
>> there was anything else we needed to do, no answer. So I asked if we would
>> need to add someone to the GH fluo-io org to do the transfer and someone
>> said probably.
>>
>
> I did this sometime last week.
>
>
>
>> Mike dropped into hipchat this morning and asked INFRA about the issue and
>> did not get an answer.
>>
Thanks Mike and Keith! I left a ping on INFRA-11901. If we don't hear
back in a day or two, we should ping again. Requests for action
shouldn't get lost on JIRA (like they might in Hipchat).
Re: JIRA vs Github Issues
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Josh Elser wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Keith Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>> > <mentor_hat>If INFRA can do the GH transition now, let's go ahead
>>>>> and do
>>>>> > it. It seems like the consensus has already been reached that GH>>
>>>>> JIRA
>>>>> > and INFRA has not directly persuaded against GH per your last
>>>>> messages,
>>>>> > Keith. Let's take action now.
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok yeah, based on Mike and Christopher's past messages its pretty clear
>>>> that they are in favor. I will update the INFRA issue and try to
>>>> figure out
>>>> the next step.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thanks for driving, Keith, and sorry for not taking more action myself
>>> to push this :)
>>>
>>
>> Any update? How can I help?
>>
>
> I don't know. At this point waiting on INFRA. I dropped into hipchat and
> stated we had finalized our decision and updated the issue. I asked if
> there was anything else we needed to do, no answer. So I asked if we would
> need to add someone to the GH fluo-io org to do the transfer and someone
> said probably.
>
I did this sometime last week.
>
> Mike dropped into hipchat this morning and asked INFRA about the issue and
> did not get an answer.
>
>
>
>
Re: JIRA vs Github Issues
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Josh Elser wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Keith Turner wrote:
>>
>>> > <mentor_hat>If INFRA can do the GH transition now, let's go ahead
>>>> and do
>>>> > it. It seems like the consensus has already been reached that GH>>
>>>> JIRA
>>>> > and INFRA has not directly persuaded against GH per your last
>>>> messages,
>>>> > Keith. Let's take action now.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok yeah, based on Mike and Christopher's past messages its pretty clear
>>> that they are in favor. I will update the INFRA issue and try to
>>> figure out
>>> the next step.
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks for driving, Keith, and sorry for not taking more action myself
>> to push this :)
>>
>
> Any update? How can I help?
>
I don't know. At this point waiting on INFRA. I dropped into hipchat and
stated we had finalized our decision and updated the issue. I asked if
there was anything else we needed to do, no answer. So I asked if we would
need to add someone to the GH fluo-io org to do the transfer and someone
said probably.
Mike dropped into hipchat this morning and asked INFRA about the issue and
did not get an answer.
Re: JIRA vs Github Issues
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
Josh Elser wrote:
>
>
> Keith Turner wrote:
>>> > <mentor_hat>If INFRA can do the GH transition now, let's go ahead
>>> and do
>>> > it. It seems like the consensus has already been reached that GH>>
>>> JIRA
>>> > and INFRA has not directly persuaded against GH per your last
>>> messages,
>>> > Keith. Let's take action now.
>>> >
>>
>> Ok yeah, based on Mike and Christopher's past messages its pretty clear
>> that they are in favor. I will update the INFRA issue and try to
>> figure out
>> the next step.
>>
>
> Thanks for driving, Keith, and sorry for not taking more action myself
> to push this :)
Any update? How can I help?
Re: JIRA vs Github Issues
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
Keith Turner wrote:
>> > <mentor_hat>If INFRA can do the GH transition now, let's go ahead and do
>> > it. It seems like the consensus has already been reached that GH>> JIRA
>> > and INFRA has not directly persuaded against GH per your last messages,
>> > Keith. Let's take action now.
>> >
>
> Ok yeah, based on Mike and Christopher's past messages its pretty clear
> that they are in favor. I will update the INFRA issue and try to figure out
> the next step.
>
Thanks for driving, Keith, and sorry for not taking more action myself
to push this :)
Re: JIRA vs Github Issues
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Keith Turner wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Keith Turner<ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Christopher<ct...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>>
>>>> >> Personally, I'd rather use GitHub issues anyway. The minor
>>>> inconvenience
>>>> >> in
>>>> >> the case of occasional unresponsive reporters I think would be
>>>> minimal and
>>>> >> acceptable (there is the additional annoyance of not being able to
>>>> manage
>>>> >> labels on issues, but I think even that is minor).
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Using GitHub issues could even help advance the state of
>>>> development on
>>>> >> ASF
>>>> >> projects, by offering an additional use case to motivate further
>>>> >> convenience integration. We could even help create or test a
>>>> service which
>>>> >> authenticates using ASF project credentials and integrates with
>>>> GitHub's
>>>> >> API to manage issues. I've recently been looking at GitHub OAuth
>>>> >> integrated
>>>> >> applications, and it doesn't seem like a difficult service to
>>>> create. Or,
>>>> >> perhaps the M.A.T.T. stuff will be online and available to us soon
>>>> enough
>>>> >> and it won't matter.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> But, if the majority feel JIRA would be better in the meantime,
>>>> then we
>>>> >> can
>>>> >> convert the existing issues to JIRA, transfer the repo, and have
>>>> issues
>>>> >> disabled. I strongly prefer GH issues over JIRA, but defer to the
>>>> >> majority.
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>> >
>>> > I don't have a strong preference. I slightly prefer GH issues. At
>>> this
>>> > point, my main motivation is moving forward. Don't want to be stuck
>>> in
>>> > limbo forever. I'll pop into hipchat and find out what the
>>> timeliness on
>>> > transferring to GH would be and what level of effort it requires on
>>> INFRA's
>>> > part. I'll report back what I find.
>>> >
>>>
>>
>> Ok I talked to INFRA and found out two things. We would be able to close
>> issues w/ a commit like here[1] An aside I feel like I have seen apache
>> top level docs on that, but could not find it.. In hipchat Daniel Gruno
>> said he has closed issues in this way w/ ponymail. I suspected we could
>> do
>> this, because we have closed PRs that way in Accumulo. It was nice to get
>> confirmation that it worked with issues.
>>
>> I also asked if it would be burdensome for infra for any reason to
>> transfer
>> the existing GH project to Apache. Daniel Takamori said it would not be
>> and that they have done it before.
>>
>> Based on this info I am leaning towards taking the GH issues + transfer
>> existing GH project route. Does this change anyone elses opinion?
>>
>> Also I realized this would save us the "transfer to JIRA step". Which I am
>> not sure how involved that is.
>>
>
> As far as I know, the "transfer to JIRA" is an automated task (based on
> the number of other projects I've seen have this done already).
>
> Closing issues like PRs sounds fine to me. Does not seem burdensome.
>
> <mentor_hat>If INFRA can do the GH transition now, let's go ahead and do
> it. It seems like the consensus has already been reached that GH >> JIRA
> and INFRA has not directly persuaded against GH per your last messages,
> Keith. Let's take action now.
>
Ok yeah, based on Mike and Christopher's past messages its pretty clear
that they are in favor. I will update the INFRA issue and try to figure out
the next step.
>
> [1]:
>>
>> https://mahout.apache.org/developers/github.html#closing-a-pr-without-committing-for-committers
>>
>>
>>
Re: JIRA vs Github Issues
Posted by Mike Walch <mw...@gmail.com>.
+1 to GH issues
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 12:27 PM Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Keith Turner wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Keith Turner<ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Christopher<ct...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >>> >> Personally, I'd rather use GitHub issues anyway. The minor
> inconvenience
> >>> >> in
> >>> >> the case of occasional unresponsive reporters I think would be
> minimal and
> >>> >> acceptable (there is the additional annoyance of not being able to
> manage
> >>> >> labels on issues, but I think even that is minor).
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Using GitHub issues could even help advance the state of
> development on
> >>> >> ASF
> >>> >> projects, by offering an additional use case to motivate further
> >>> >> convenience integration. We could even help create or test a
> service which
> >>> >> authenticates using ASF project credentials and integrates with
> GitHub's
> >>> >> API to manage issues. I've recently been looking at GitHub OAuth
> >>> >> integrated
> >>> >> applications, and it doesn't seem like a difficult service to
> create. Or,
> >>> >> perhaps the M.A.T.T. stuff will be online and available to us soon
> enough
> >>> >> and it won't matter.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> But, if the majority feel JIRA would be better in the meantime,
> then we
> >>> >> can
> >>> >> convert the existing issues to JIRA, transfer the repo, and have
> issues
> >>> >> disabled. I strongly prefer GH issues over JIRA, but defer to the
> >>> >> majority.
> >>> >>
> >> >
> >> > I don't have a strong preference. I slightly prefer GH issues. At
> this
> >> > point, my main motivation is moving forward. Don't want to be stuck
> in
> >> > limbo forever. I'll pop into hipchat and find out what the
> timeliness on
> >> > transferring to GH would be and what level of effort it requires on
> INFRA's
> >> > part. I'll report back what I find.
> >> >
> >
> > Ok I talked to INFRA and found out two things. We would be able to close
> > issues w/ a commit like here[1] An aside I feel like I have seen apache
> > top level docs on that, but could not find it.. In hipchat Daniel Gruno
> > said he has closed issues in this way w/ ponymail. I suspected we could
> do
> > this, because we have closed PRs that way in Accumulo. It was nice to
> get
> > confirmation that it worked with issues.
> >
> > I also asked if it would be burdensome for infra for any reason to
> transfer
> > the existing GH project to Apache. Daniel Takamori said it would not be
> > and that they have done it before.
> >
> > Based on this info I am leaning towards taking the GH issues + transfer
> > existing GH project route. Does this change anyone elses opinion?
> >
> > Also I realized this would save us the "transfer to JIRA step". Which I
> am
> > not sure how involved that is.
>
> As far as I know, the "transfer to JIRA" is an automated task (based on
> the number of other projects I've seen have this done already).
>
> Closing issues like PRs sounds fine to me. Does not seem burdensome.
>
> <mentor_hat>If INFRA can do the GH transition now, let's go ahead and do
> it. It seems like the consensus has already been reached that GH >> JIRA
> and INFRA has not directly persuaded against GH per your last messages,
> Keith. Let's take action now.
>
> > [1]:
> >
> https://mahout.apache.org/developers/github.html#closing-a-pr-without-committing-for-committers
> >
> >
>
Re: JIRA vs Github Issues
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
Keith Turner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Keith Turner<ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Christopher<ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>>> >> Personally, I'd rather use GitHub issues anyway. The minor inconvenience
>>> >> in
>>> >> the case of occasional unresponsive reporters I think would be minimal and
>>> >> acceptable (there is the additional annoyance of not being able to manage
>>> >> labels on issues, but I think even that is minor).
>>> >>
>>> >> Using GitHub issues could even help advance the state of development on
>>> >> ASF
>>> >> projects, by offering an additional use case to motivate further
>>> >> convenience integration. We could even help create or test a service which
>>> >> authenticates using ASF project credentials and integrates with GitHub's
>>> >> API to manage issues. I've recently been looking at GitHub OAuth
>>> >> integrated
>>> >> applications, and it doesn't seem like a difficult service to create. Or,
>>> >> perhaps the M.A.T.T. stuff will be online and available to us soon enough
>>> >> and it won't matter.
>>> >>
>>> >> But, if the majority feel JIRA would be better in the meantime, then we
>>> >> can
>>> >> convert the existing issues to JIRA, transfer the repo, and have issues
>>> >> disabled. I strongly prefer GH issues over JIRA, but defer to the
>>> >> majority.
>>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't have a strong preference. I slightly prefer GH issues. At this
>> > point, my main motivation is moving forward. Don't want to be stuck in
>> > limbo forever. I'll pop into hipchat and find out what the timeliness on
>> > transferring to GH would be and what level of effort it requires on INFRA's
>> > part. I'll report back what I find.
>> >
>
> Ok I talked to INFRA and found out two things. We would be able to close
> issues w/ a commit like here[1] An aside I feel like I have seen apache
> top level docs on that, but could not find it.. In hipchat Daniel Gruno
> said he has closed issues in this way w/ ponymail. I suspected we could do
> this, because we have closed PRs that way in Accumulo. It was nice to get
> confirmation that it worked with issues.
>
> I also asked if it would be burdensome for infra for any reason to transfer
> the existing GH project to Apache. Daniel Takamori said it would not be
> and that they have done it before.
>
> Based on this info I am leaning towards taking the GH issues + transfer
> existing GH project route. Does this change anyone elses opinion?
>
> Also I realized this would save us the "transfer to JIRA step". Which I am
> not sure how involved that is.
As far as I know, the "transfer to JIRA" is an automated task (based on
the number of other projects I've seen have this done already).
Closing issues like PRs sounds fine to me. Does not seem burdensome.
<mentor_hat>If INFRA can do the GH transition now, let's go ahead and do
it. It seems like the consensus has already been reached that GH >> JIRA
and INFRA has not directly persuaded against GH per your last messages,
Keith. Let's take action now.
> [1]:
> https://mahout.apache.org/developers/github.html#closing-a-pr-without-committing-for-committers
>
>
Re: JIRA vs Github Issues
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Personally, I'd rather use GitHub issues anyway. The minor inconvenience
>> in
>> the case of occasional unresponsive reporters I think would be minimal and
>> acceptable (there is the additional annoyance of not being able to manage
>> labels on issues, but I think even that is minor).
>>
>> Using GitHub issues could even help advance the state of development on
>> ASF
>> projects, by offering an additional use case to motivate further
>> convenience integration. We could even help create or test a service which
>> authenticates using ASF project credentials and integrates with GitHub's
>> API to manage issues. I've recently been looking at GitHub OAuth
>> integrated
>> applications, and it doesn't seem like a difficult service to create. Or,
>> perhaps the M.A.T.T. stuff will be online and available to us soon enough
>> and it won't matter.
>>
>> But, if the majority feel JIRA would be better in the meantime, then we
>> can
>> convert the existing issues to JIRA, transfer the repo, and have issues
>> disabled. I strongly prefer GH issues over JIRA, but defer to the
>> majority.
>>
>
> I don't have a strong preference. I slightly prefer GH issues. At this
> point, my main motivation is moving forward. Don't want to be stuck in
> limbo forever. I'll pop into hipchat and find out what the timeliness on
> transferring to GH would be and what level of effort it requires on INFRA's
> part. I'll report back what I find.
>
Ok I talked to INFRA and found out two things. We would be able to close
issues w/ a commit like here[1] An aside I feel like I have seen apache
top level docs on that, but could not find it.. In hipchat Daniel Gruno
said he has closed issues in this way w/ ponymail. I suspected we could do
this, because we have closed PRs that way in Accumulo. It was nice to get
confirmation that it worked with issues.
I also asked if it would be burdensome for infra for any reason to transfer
the existing GH project to Apache. Daniel Takamori said it would not be
and that they have done it before.
Based on this info I am leaning towards taking the GH issues + transfer
existing GH project route. Does this change anyone elses opinion?
Also I realized this would save us the "transfer to JIRA step". Which I am
not sure how involved that is.
[1]:
https://mahout.apache.org/developers/github.html#closing-a-pr-without-committing-for-committers
>
>
>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:23 PM Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > IMO, use JIRA to start, and if/when INFRA gives their "blessing" that
>> GH
>> > > issues is a supported way to go, we can consider switching then.
>> >
>> >
>> > I am in favor of that.
>> >
>> > Also I have been researching the option of transferring the existing GH
>> > project to Apache and not using GH issues. I asked INFRA about this
>> and if
>> > we are not using GH issues, then they will turn issues off for the Repo.
>> > On a personal repo (with one issue) I tried turning off issues to see
>> what
>> > would happen. After doing this I could not longer access issues. Also
>> a
>> > link to the issue started returning 404. I turned issues back on and
>> the
>> > issue was still there and the link started working. Based on this
>> > behaviour, I am not in favor of transferring the repo if we use Jira.
>> I
>> > would like links to existing issues to keep working.
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Keith Turner wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> I spoke w/ INFRA on Hipchat and got some more info[1]. So we will
>> not
>> > be
>> > >> able to close issue on GH and there is no timeline on when we would
>> be
>> > >> able
>> > >> to. Given this we need to decide if we would like to use GH issues
>> or
>> > >> JIRA. Also we can transfer the existing project to Apache and not
>> use
>> > GH
>> > >> issues.
>> > >>
>> > >> I am leaning towards using Jira. Not being able to close issues
>> could
>> > be
>> > >> a
>> > >> pain.
>> > >>
>> > >> [1]:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11901?focusedCommentId=15320755&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15320755
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: JIRA vs Github Issues
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> Personally, I'd rather use GitHub issues anyway. The minor inconvenience in
> the case of occasional unresponsive reporters I think would be minimal and
> acceptable (there is the additional annoyance of not being able to manage
> labels on issues, but I think even that is minor).
>
> Using GitHub issues could even help advance the state of development on ASF
> projects, by offering an additional use case to motivate further
> convenience integration. We could even help create or test a service which
> authenticates using ASF project credentials and integrates with GitHub's
> API to manage issues. I've recently been looking at GitHub OAuth integrated
> applications, and it doesn't seem like a difficult service to create. Or,
> perhaps the M.A.T.T. stuff will be online and available to us soon enough
> and it won't matter.
>
> But, if the majority feel JIRA would be better in the meantime, then we can
> convert the existing issues to JIRA, transfer the repo, and have issues
> disabled. I strongly prefer GH issues over JIRA, but defer to the majority.
>
I don't have a strong preference. I slightly prefer GH issues. At this
point, my main motivation is moving forward. Don't want to be stuck in
limbo forever. I'll pop into hipchat and find out what the timeliness on
transferring to GH would be and what level of effort it requires on INFRA's
part. I'll report back what I find.
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:23 PM Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > IMO, use JIRA to start, and if/when INFRA gives their "blessing" that
> GH
> > > issues is a supported way to go, we can consider switching then.
> >
> >
> > I am in favor of that.
> >
> > Also I have been researching the option of transferring the existing GH
> > project to Apache and not using GH issues. I asked INFRA about this and
> if
> > we are not using GH issues, then they will turn issues off for the Repo.
> > On a personal repo (with one issue) I tried turning off issues to see
> what
> > would happen. After doing this I could not longer access issues. Also a
> > link to the issue started returning 404. I turned issues back on and
> the
> > issue was still there and the link started working. Based on this
> > behaviour, I am not in favor of transferring the repo if we use Jira. I
> > would like links to existing issues to keep working.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Keith Turner wrote:
> > >
> > >> I spoke w/ INFRA on Hipchat and got some more info[1]. So we will not
> > be
> > >> able to close issue on GH and there is no timeline on when we would be
> > >> able
> > >> to. Given this we need to decide if we would like to use GH issues or
> > >> JIRA. Also we can transfer the existing project to Apache and not
> use
> > GH
> > >> issues.
> > >>
> > >> I am leaning towards using Jira. Not being able to close issues could
> > be
> > >> a
> > >> pain.
> > >>
> > >> [1]:
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11901?focusedCommentId=15320755&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15320755
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>
Re: JIRA vs Github Issues
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
Christopher wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:35 PM Josh Elser<jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> While it's all fine and great to want to help out INFRA, it should not
>> be keeping the Fluo from growing.
>>
>>
> I agree. I meant that as a secondary comment. My main point was that I
> didn't think it would be much of an inconvenience (IMO).
>
>
>> Remember, this is a time that we all need to focus on growing the
>> community behind Fluo in a well-oiled machine. I just see trying to hop
>> onto the Github train before it's ready as an impediment to what should
>> be the #1 goal.
>>
>>
> It's not that I'm trying to hop onto a new train. I'm trying to prevent
> switching tracks, only to switch again later.
That's fair. I was viewing it from a POV that moving to the ASF implied
a switch of infrastructure. You definitely have a point
>> With my mentor hat on, I would strongly suggest getting the podling
>> online, and revisit Github once everything is up and running (and it's
>> not blocking development/community-growth).
>>
>>
> Makes sense. I'm more than happy to defer to the majority opinion. What's
> most important is that it gets taken care of so we can move forward.
Thanks for understanding. I'm definitely for JIRA for the time-being and
I think Keith and Mike both are on the "let's use JIRA for now" train as
well.
Re: JIRA vs Github Issues
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:35 PM Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While it's all fine and great to want to help out INFRA, it should not
> be keeping the Fluo from growing.
>
>
I agree. I meant that as a secondary comment. My main point was that I
didn't think it would be much of an inconvenience (IMO).
> Remember, this is a time that we all need to focus on growing the
> community behind Fluo in a well-oiled machine. I just see trying to hop
> onto the Github train before it's ready as an impediment to what should
> be the #1 goal.
>
>
It's not that I'm trying to hop onto a new train. I'm trying to prevent
switching tracks, only to switch again later.
> With my mentor hat on, I would strongly suggest getting the podling
> online, and revisit Github once everything is up and running (and it's
> not blocking development/community-growth).
>
>
Makes sense. I'm more than happy to defer to the majority opinion. What's
most important is that it gets taken care of so we can move forward.
Re: JIRA vs Github Issues
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
While it's all fine and great to want to help out INFRA, it should not
be keeping the Fluo from growing.
Remember, this is a time that we all need to focus on growing the
community behind Fluo in a well-oiled machine. I just see trying to hop
onto the Github train before it's ready as an impediment to what should
be the #1 goal.
With my mentor hat on, I would strongly suggest getting the podling
online, and revisit Github once everything is up and running (and it's
not blocking development/community-growth).
Christopher wrote:
> Personally, I'd rather use GitHub issues anyway. The minor inconvenience in
> the case of occasional unresponsive reporters I think would be minimal and
> acceptable (there is the additional annoyance of not being able to manage
> labels on issues, but I think even that is minor).
>
> Using GitHub issues could even help advance the state of development on ASF
> projects, by offering an additional use case to motivate further
> convenience integration. We could even help create or test a service which
> authenticates using ASF project credentials and integrates with GitHub's
> API to manage issues. I've recently been looking at GitHub OAuth integrated
> applications, and it doesn't seem like a difficult service to create. Or,
> perhaps the M.A.T.T. stuff will be online and available to us soon enough
> and it won't matter.
>
> But, if the majority feel JIRA would be better in the meantime, then we can
> convert the existing issues to JIRA, transfer the repo, and have issues
> disabled. I strongly prefer GH issues over JIRA, but defer to the majority.
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:23 PM Keith Turner<ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Josh Elser<jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> IMO, use JIRA to start, and if/when INFRA gives their "blessing" that GH
>>> issues is a supported way to go, we can consider switching then.
>>
>> I am in favor of that.
>>
>> Also I have been researching the option of transferring the existing GH
>> project to Apache and not using GH issues. I asked INFRA about this and if
>> we are not using GH issues, then they will turn issues off for the Repo.
>> On a personal repo (with one issue) I tried turning off issues to see what
>> would happen. After doing this I could not longer access issues. Also a
>> link to the issue started returning 404. I turned issues back on and the
>> issue was still there and the link started working. Based on this
>> behaviour, I am not in favor of transferring the repo if we use Jira. I
>> would like links to existing issues to keep working.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Keith Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>> I spoke w/ INFRA on Hipchat and got some more info[1]. So we will not
>> be
>>>> able to close issue on GH and there is no timeline on when we would be
>>>> able
>>>> to. Given this we need to decide if we would like to use GH issues or
>>>> JIRA. Also we can transfer the existing project to Apache and not use
>> GH
>>>> issues.
>>>>
>>>> I am leaning towards using Jira. Not being able to close issues could
>> be
>>>> a
>>>> pain.
>>>>
>>>> [1]:
>>>>
>>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11901?focusedCommentId=15320755&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15320755
>>>>
>
Re: JIRA vs Github Issues
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> Personally, I'd rather use GitHub issues anyway. The minor inconvenience in
> the case of occasional unresponsive reporters I think would be minimal and
> acceptable (there is the additional annoyance of not being able to manage
> labels on issues, but I think even that is minor).
>
I think I agree w/ you there, it may be a minor annoyance. I could live
with it. Even though I am ok with living with the annoyance I have the
following concerns w/ the GH path :
* Getting something done in a timely manner. INFRA has been very
unresponsive on this path. However, INFRA guys in chat seem to indicate
that if we can choose this path and they will do it.
* Placing additional burden on INFRA in the short term, it the GH path
involves lots of one off task for them. This could result in more delays.
>
> Using GitHub issues could even help advance the state of development on ASF
> projects, by offering an additional use case to motivate further
> convenience integration. We could even help create or test a service which
>
We does not include me in this case. I don't realistically have time to
work these types of issues,. Do not want to be stuck in a situation where
we need work done re GH issues and its never done by anyone
> authenticates using ASF project credentials and integrates with GitHub's
> API to manage issues. I've recently been looking at GitHub OAuth integrated
> applications, and it doesn't seem like a difficult service to create. Or,
> perhaps the M.A.T.T. stuff will be online and available to us soon enough
> and it won't matter.
>
> But, if the majority feel JIRA would be better in the meantime, then we can
> convert the existing issues to JIRA, transfer the repo, and have issues
> disabled. I strongly prefer GH issues over JIRA, but defer to the majority.
>
I would not want to transfer the repo and disable issues. This would make
all links to existing issues stop working.
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:23 PM Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > IMO, use JIRA to start, and if/when INFRA gives their "blessing" that
> GH
> > > issues is a supported way to go, we can consider switching then.
> >
> >
> > I am in favor of that.
> >
> > Also I have been researching the option of transferring the existing GH
> > project to Apache and not using GH issues. I asked INFRA about this and
> if
> > we are not using GH issues, then they will turn issues off for the Repo.
> > On a personal repo (with one issue) I tried turning off issues to see
> what
> > would happen. After doing this I could not longer access issues. Also a
> > link to the issue started returning 404. I turned issues back on and
> the
> > issue was still there and the link started working. Based on this
> > behaviour, I am not in favor of transferring the repo if we use Jira. I
> > would like links to existing issues to keep working.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Keith Turner wrote:
> > >
> > >> I spoke w/ INFRA on Hipchat and got some more info[1]. So we will not
> > be
> > >> able to close issue on GH and there is no timeline on when we would be
> > >> able
> > >> to. Given this we need to decide if we would like to use GH issues or
> > >> JIRA. Also we can transfer the existing project to Apache and not
> use
> > GH
> > >> issues.
> > >>
> > >> I am leaning towards using Jira. Not being able to close issues could
> > be
> > >> a
> > >> pain.
> > >>
> > >> [1]:
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11901?focusedCommentId=15320755&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15320755
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>
Re: JIRA vs Github Issues
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
Personally, I'd rather use GitHub issues anyway. The minor inconvenience in
the case of occasional unresponsive reporters I think would be minimal and
acceptable (there is the additional annoyance of not being able to manage
labels on issues, but I think even that is minor).
Using GitHub issues could even help advance the state of development on ASF
projects, by offering an additional use case to motivate further
convenience integration. We could even help create or test a service which
authenticates using ASF project credentials and integrates with GitHub's
API to manage issues. I've recently been looking at GitHub OAuth integrated
applications, and it doesn't seem like a difficult service to create. Or,
perhaps the M.A.T.T. stuff will be online and available to us soon enough
and it won't matter.
But, if the majority feel JIRA would be better in the meantime, then we can
convert the existing issues to JIRA, transfer the repo, and have issues
disabled. I strongly prefer GH issues over JIRA, but defer to the majority.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:23 PM Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > IMO, use JIRA to start, and if/when INFRA gives their "blessing" that GH
> > issues is a supported way to go, we can consider switching then.
>
>
> I am in favor of that.
>
> Also I have been researching the option of transferring the existing GH
> project to Apache and not using GH issues. I asked INFRA about this and if
> we are not using GH issues, then they will turn issues off for the Repo.
> On a personal repo (with one issue) I tried turning off issues to see what
> would happen. After doing this I could not longer access issues. Also a
> link to the issue started returning 404. I turned issues back on and the
> issue was still there and the link started working. Based on this
> behaviour, I am not in favor of transferring the repo if we use Jira. I
> would like links to existing issues to keep working.
>
>
> >
> >
> > Keith Turner wrote:
> >
> >> I spoke w/ INFRA on Hipchat and got some more info[1]. So we will not
> be
> >> able to close issue on GH and there is no timeline on when we would be
> >> able
> >> to. Given this we need to decide if we would like to use GH issues or
> >> JIRA. Also we can transfer the existing project to Apache and not use
> GH
> >> issues.
> >>
> >> I am leaning towards using Jira. Not being able to close issues could
> be
> >> a
> >> pain.
> >>
> >> [1]:
> >>
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11901?focusedCommentId=15320755&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15320755
> >>
> >>
>
Re: JIRA vs Github Issues
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMO, use JIRA to start, and if/when INFRA gives their "blessing" that GH
> issues is a supported way to go, we can consider switching then.
I am in favor of that.
Also I have been researching the option of transferring the existing GH
project to Apache and not using GH issues. I asked INFRA about this and if
we are not using GH issues, then they will turn issues off for the Repo.
On a personal repo (with one issue) I tried turning off issues to see what
would happen. After doing this I could not longer access issues. Also a
link to the issue started returning 404. I turned issues back on and the
issue was still there and the link started working. Based on this
behaviour, I am not in favor of transferring the repo if we use Jira. I
would like links to existing issues to keep working.
>
>
> Keith Turner wrote:
>
>> I spoke w/ INFRA on Hipchat and got some more info[1]. So we will not be
>> able to close issue on GH and there is no timeline on when we would be
>> able
>> to. Given this we need to decide if we would like to use GH issues or
>> JIRA. Also we can transfer the existing project to Apache and not use GH
>> issues.
>>
>> I am leaning towards using Jira. Not being able to close issues could be
>> a
>> pain.
>>
>> [1]:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11901?focusedCommentId=15320755&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15320755
>>
>>
Re: JIRA vs Github Issues
Posted by Mike Walch <mw...@gmail.com>.
While I prefer GH issues over JIRA, I agree with Josh. It's not worth
using GH issues if there is going to be unresolved problems.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 1:14 PM Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMO, use JIRA to start, and if/when INFRA gives their "blessing" that GH
> issues is a supported way to go, we can consider switching then.
>
> Keith Turner wrote:
> > I spoke w/ INFRA on Hipchat and got some more info[1]. So we will not be
> > able to close issue on GH and there is no timeline on when we would be
> able
> > to. Given this we need to decide if we would like to use GH issues or
> > JIRA. Also we can transfer the existing project to Apache and not use
> GH
> > issues.
> >
> > I am leaning towards using Jira. Not being able to close issues could
> be a
> > pain.
> >
> > [1]:
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11901?focusedCommentId=15320755&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15320755
> >
>
Re: JIRA vs Github Issues
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
IMO, use JIRA to start, and if/when INFRA gives their "blessing" that GH
issues is a supported way to go, we can consider switching then.
Keith Turner wrote:
> I spoke w/ INFRA on Hipchat and got some more info[1]. So we will not be
> able to close issue on GH and there is no timeline on when we would be able
> to. Given this we need to decide if we would like to use GH issues or
> JIRA. Also we can transfer the existing project to Apache and not use GH
> issues.
>
> I am leaning towards using Jira. Not being able to close issues could be a
> pain.
>
> [1]:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11901?focusedCommentId=15320755&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15320755
>