You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@accumulo.apache.org by Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> on 2018/02/15 17:05:16 UTC
[DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial period,
the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using
Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the top-post.
>
> I really appreciate the numbered list below, Keith. Specifically the answers
> to #1 and #4 make me very happy.
>
> I think #5 needs some a little more concrete (IMO, you should just decide
> what it should be).
My wording "proposal suggest" was misleading and redundant. The
entire proposal is a suggestion. However in the proposal I think it
is very concrete about using labels for versions. Please let me know
if there is a place where the proposal is not concrete about this.
>
> #6 +1 to a message to private, this is how Apache general requests this be
> done).
>
> While I can appreciate your stance on #3 and I think I would not call it a
> blocker either, this is probably something worth the 15-30 minutes of
> investigation. Sean/Mike may feel more strongly than I do. Learning from
> others, even if it just dropping an email to dev@spark directly to ask the
> question goes a long way..
>
>
> On 3/7/18 10:55 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> -0 as an initial reaction because I'm still not convinced that GH issues
>>>> provides any additional features or better experience than JIRA does,
>>>> and
>>>> this change would only serve to fragment an already bare community.
>>>>
>>>> My concerns that would push that -0 to a -1 include (but aren't limited
>>>> to):
>>>>
>>>> * Documentation/website update for the release process
>>>> * Validation that our release processes on JIRA has similar
>>>> functionality on
>>>> GH issues
>>>> * Updated contributor docs (removing JIRA related content, add an
>>>> explanation as to the change)
>>>> * CONTRIBUTING.md updated on relevant repos
>>>
>>>
>>> I opened the following PR with a proposal for how we could start using
>>> github.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website/pull/59
>>
>>
>> There were lots of valid concerns raised during this discussion. The
>> concerns shaped the proposal I submitted. Rather than reply to them
>> individually in different emails I am collecting them all here and
>> sharing my thoughts about them.
>>
>>
>> 1. How do we release?
>>
>> JIRA is used in three important ways for releases : setting blockers,
>> triaging issues, and generating release notes. I think the proposal
>> addresses all three.
>>
>> 2. Will we document contributor guidelines to avoid confusion?
>>
>> What is expected of contributors is clearly documented.
>>
>> 3. Can someone investigate how Spark operates before switching?
>>
>> That would be great if someone volunteered to do this and wrote up
>> their
>> findings. However if no one volunteers, then I do not think this
>> should
>> be a blocker. There are many other projects that would be worthy of
>> investigation also.
>>
>> 4. What is the migration plan for existing issues? Will we have split
>> issue
>> tracker for years?
>>
>> The proposal documents migrating existing JIRA issues as they are
>> worked.
>> This means that existing JIRA issues that are never worked will never
>> migrate. After all branches are released, JIRA can be put in read only
>> mode
>> (only PMC can change it). It will be left active for reference and
>> migration of existing issues.
>>
>> 5. How will we handle fix versions?
>>
>> The proposal suggest using issue labels in github for this. Also
>> suggest
>> using a prefix on fix version labels to make them sort last.
>>
>> 6. How will we handle security issues?
>>
>> We need to clearly document on our website how users should report
>> security issues. I am not sure this is done at the moment. Since
>> this
>> is infrequent I think we can handle this on the private list. I think
>> our workflow should be optimized for frequent actions and not
>> infrequent
>> ones.
>>
>> 7. Should we switch all repos to GH issues except Accumulo core?
>>
>> I think this a good example of how design by committee can go
>> wrong. This is a really confusing solution that does not
>> improve our workflow, so the benefits are not clear to me.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Josh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/15/18 12:05 PM, Mike Walch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
>>>>> GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial
>>>>> period,
>>>>> the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using
>>>>> Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
>>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:50 AM Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the top-post.
>
> I really appreciate the numbered list below, Keith. Specifically the
> answers to #1 and #4 make me very happy.
>
> I think #5 needs some a little more concrete (IMO, you should just
> decide what it should be).
>
> #6 +1 to a message to private, this is how Apache general requests this
> be done).
>
> While I can appreciate your stance on #3 and I think I would not call it
> a blocker either, this is probably something worth the 15-30 minutes of
> investigation. Sean/Mike may feel more strongly than I do. Learning from
> others, even if it just dropping an email to dev@spark directly to ask
> the question goes a long way..
>
As for #3, the question "hey, why are you *NOT* doing X" seems to me to be
a weird question to ask of one specific group from the set of all groups
also not doing X. Since it doesn't make sense to me, I'm not going to
volunteer, but I'll support anybody who does step up. If nobody does
volunteer, though, this part of the discussion seems to be headed nowhere.
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
Sorry for the top-post.
I really appreciate the numbered list below, Keith. Specifically the
answers to #1 and #4 make me very happy.
I think #5 needs some a little more concrete (IMO, you should just
decide what it should be).
#6 +1 to a message to private, this is how Apache general requests this
be done).
While I can appreciate your stance on #3 and I think I would not call it
a blocker either, this is probably something worth the 15-30 minutes of
investigation. Sean/Mike may feel more strongly than I do. Learning from
others, even if it just dropping an email to dev@spark directly to ask
the question goes a long way..
On 3/7/18 10:55 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> -0 as an initial reaction because I'm still not convinced that GH issues
>>> provides any additional features or better experience than JIRA does, and
>>> this change would only serve to fragment an already bare community.
>>>
>>> My concerns that would push that -0 to a -1 include (but aren't limited to):
>>>
>>> * Documentation/website update for the release process
>>> * Validation that our release processes on JIRA has similar functionality on
>>> GH issues
>>> * Updated contributor docs (removing JIRA related content, add an
>>> explanation as to the change)
>>> * CONTRIBUTING.md updated on relevant repos
>>
>> I opened the following PR with a proposal for how we could start using github.
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website/pull/59
>
> There were lots of valid concerns raised during this discussion. The
> concerns shaped the proposal I submitted. Rather than reply to them
> individually in different emails I am collecting them all here and
> sharing my thoughts about them.
>
>
> 1. How do we release?
>
> JIRA is used in three important ways for releases : setting blockers,
> triaging issues, and generating release notes. I think the proposal
> addresses all three.
>
> 2. Will we document contributor guidelines to avoid confusion?
>
> What is expected of contributors is clearly documented.
>
> 3. Can someone investigate how Spark operates before switching?
>
> That would be great if someone volunteered to do this and wrote up their
> findings. However if no one volunteers, then I do not think this should
> be a blocker. There are many other projects that would be worthy of
> investigation also.
>
> 4. What is the migration plan for existing issues? Will we have split issue
> tracker for years?
>
> The proposal documents migrating existing JIRA issues as they are worked.
> This means that existing JIRA issues that are never worked will never
> migrate. After all branches are released, JIRA can be put in read only mode
> (only PMC can change it). It will be left active for reference and
> migration of existing issues.
>
> 5. How will we handle fix versions?
>
> The proposal suggest using issue labels in github for this. Also suggest
> using a prefix on fix version labels to make them sort last.
>
> 6. How will we handle security issues?
>
> We need to clearly document on our website how users should report
> security issues. I am not sure this is done at the moment. Since this
> is infrequent I think we can handle this on the private list. I think
> our workflow should be optimized for frequent actions and not infrequent
> ones.
>
> 7. Should we switch all repos to GH issues except Accumulo core?
>
> I think this a good example of how design by committee can go
> wrong. This is a really confusing solution that does not
> improve our workflow, so the benefits are not clear to me.
>
>>
>>>
>>> - Josh
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/15/18 12:05 PM, Mike Walch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
>>>> GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial
>>>> period,
>>>> the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using
>>>> Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
>>>>
>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> 4. What is the migration plan for existing issues? Will we have split
>> issue
>> tracker for years?
>>
>> The proposal documents migrating existing JIRA issues as they are worked.
>> This means that existing JIRA issues that are never worked will never
>> migrate. After all branches are released, JIRA can be put in read only
>> mode
>> (only PMC can change it). It will be left active for reference and
>> migration of existing issues.
>>
>
> My view is that issues do not have to be worked on to be moved. If someone
> thinks an issue is important,
> they can move it over, create links both ways, and close the JIRA issue.
SGTM
>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> -0 as an initial reaction because I'm still not convinced that GH issues
>> >> provides any additional features or better experience than JIRA does,
>> and
>> >> this change would only serve to fragment an already bare community.
>> >>
>> >> My concerns that would push that -0 to a -1 include (but aren't limited
>> to):
>> >>
>> >> * Documentation/website update for the release process
>> >> * Validation that our release processes on JIRA has similar
>> functionality on
>> >> GH issues
>> >> * Updated contributor docs (removing JIRA related content, add an
>> >> explanation as to the change)
>> >> * CONTRIBUTING.md updated on relevant repos
>> >
>> > I opened the following PR with a proposal for how we could start using
>> github.
>> >
>> > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website/pull/59
>>
>> There were lots of valid concerns raised during this discussion. The
>> concerns shaped the proposal I submitted. Rather than reply to them
>> individually in different emails I am collecting them all here and
>> sharing my thoughts about them.
>>
>>
>> 1. How do we release?
>>
>> JIRA is used in three important ways for releases : setting blockers,
>> triaging issues, and generating release notes. I think the proposal
>> addresses all three.
>>
>> 2. Will we document contributor guidelines to avoid confusion?
>>
>> What is expected of contributors is clearly documented.
>>
>> 3. Can someone investigate how Spark operates before switching?
>>
>> That would be great if someone volunteered to do this and wrote up their
>> findings. However if no one volunteers, then I do not think this should
>> be a blocker. There are many other projects that would be worthy of
>> investigation also.
>>
>> 4. What is the migration plan for existing issues? Will we have split
>> issue
>> tracker for years?
>>
>> The proposal documents migrating existing JIRA issues as they are worked.
>> This means that existing JIRA issues that are never worked will never
>> migrate. After all branches are released, JIRA can be put in read only
>> mode
>> (only PMC can change it). It will be left active for reference and
>> migration of existing issues.
>>
>> 5. How will we handle fix versions?
>>
>> The proposal suggest using issue labels in github for this. Also
>> suggest
>> using a prefix on fix version labels to make them sort last.
>>
>> 6. How will we handle security issues?
>>
>> We need to clearly document on our website how users should report
>> security issues. I am not sure this is done at the moment. Since this
>> is infrequent I think we can handle this on the private list. I think
>> our workflow should be optimized for frequent actions and not infrequent
>> ones.
>>
>> 7. Should we switch all repos to GH issues except Accumulo core?
>>
>> I think this a good example of how design by committee can go
>> wrong. This is a really confusing solution that does not
>> improve our workflow, so the benefits are not clear to me.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> - Josh
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 2/15/18 12:05 PM, Mike Walch wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
>> >>> GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial
>> >>> period,
>> >>> the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using
>> >>> Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org>.
>
> 4. What is the migration plan for existing issues? Will we have split
> issue
> tracker for years?
>
> The proposal documents migrating existing JIRA issues as they are worked.
> This means that existing JIRA issues that are never worked will never
> migrate. After all branches are released, JIRA can be put in read only
> mode
> (only PMC can change it). It will be left active for reference and
> migration of existing issues.
>
My view is that issues do not have to be worked on to be moved. If someone
thinks an issue is important,
they can move it over, create links both ways, and close the JIRA issue.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> -0 as an initial reaction because I'm still not convinced that GH issues
> >> provides any additional features or better experience than JIRA does,
> and
> >> this change would only serve to fragment an already bare community.
> >>
> >> My concerns that would push that -0 to a -1 include (but aren't limited
> to):
> >>
> >> * Documentation/website update for the release process
> >> * Validation that our release processes on JIRA has similar
> functionality on
> >> GH issues
> >> * Updated contributor docs (removing JIRA related content, add an
> >> explanation as to the change)
> >> * CONTRIBUTING.md updated on relevant repos
> >
> > I opened the following PR with a proposal for how we could start using
> github.
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website/pull/59
>
> There were lots of valid concerns raised during this discussion. The
> concerns shaped the proposal I submitted. Rather than reply to them
> individually in different emails I am collecting them all here and
> sharing my thoughts about them.
>
>
> 1. How do we release?
>
> JIRA is used in three important ways for releases : setting blockers,
> triaging issues, and generating release notes. I think the proposal
> addresses all three.
>
> 2. Will we document contributor guidelines to avoid confusion?
>
> What is expected of contributors is clearly documented.
>
> 3. Can someone investigate how Spark operates before switching?
>
> That would be great if someone volunteered to do this and wrote up their
> findings. However if no one volunteers, then I do not think this should
> be a blocker. There are many other projects that would be worthy of
> investigation also.
>
> 4. What is the migration plan for existing issues? Will we have split
> issue
> tracker for years?
>
> The proposal documents migrating existing JIRA issues as they are worked.
> This means that existing JIRA issues that are never worked will never
> migrate. After all branches are released, JIRA can be put in read only
> mode
> (only PMC can change it). It will be left active for reference and
> migration of existing issues.
>
> 5. How will we handle fix versions?
>
> The proposal suggest using issue labels in github for this. Also
> suggest
> using a prefix on fix version labels to make them sort last.
>
> 6. How will we handle security issues?
>
> We need to clearly document on our website how users should report
> security issues. I am not sure this is done at the moment. Since this
> is infrequent I think we can handle this on the private list. I think
> our workflow should be optimized for frequent actions and not infrequent
> ones.
>
> 7. Should we switch all repos to GH issues except Accumulo core?
>
> I think this a good example of how design by committee can go
> wrong. This is a really confusing solution that does not
> improve our workflow, so the benefits are not clear to me.
>
> >
> >>
> >> - Josh
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2/15/18 12:05 PM, Mike Walch wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
> >>> GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial
> >>> period,
> >>> the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using
> >>> Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
> >>>
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>> -0 as an initial reaction because I'm still not convinced that GH issues
>> provides any additional features or better experience than JIRA does, and
>> this change would only serve to fragment an already bare community.
>>
>> My concerns that would push that -0 to a -1 include (but aren't limited to):
>>
>> * Documentation/website update for the release process
>> * Validation that our release processes on JIRA has similar functionality on
>> GH issues
>> * Updated contributor docs (removing JIRA related content, add an
>> explanation as to the change)
>> * CONTRIBUTING.md updated on relevant repos
>
> I opened the following PR with a proposal for how we could start using github.
>
> https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website/pull/59
There were lots of valid concerns raised during this discussion. The
concerns shaped the proposal I submitted. Rather than reply to them
individually in different emails I am collecting them all here and
sharing my thoughts about them.
1. How do we release?
JIRA is used in three important ways for releases : setting blockers,
triaging issues, and generating release notes. I think the proposal
addresses all three.
2. Will we document contributor guidelines to avoid confusion?
What is expected of contributors is clearly documented.
3. Can someone investigate how Spark operates before switching?
That would be great if someone volunteered to do this and wrote up their
findings. However if no one volunteers, then I do not think this should
be a blocker. There are many other projects that would be worthy of
investigation also.
4. What is the migration plan for existing issues? Will we have split issue
tracker for years?
The proposal documents migrating existing JIRA issues as they are worked.
This means that existing JIRA issues that are never worked will never
migrate. After all branches are released, JIRA can be put in read only mode
(only PMC can change it). It will be left active for reference and
migration of existing issues.
5. How will we handle fix versions?
The proposal suggest using issue labels in github for this. Also suggest
using a prefix on fix version labels to make them sort last.
6. How will we handle security issues?
We need to clearly document on our website how users should report
security issues. I am not sure this is done at the moment. Since this
is infrequent I think we can handle this on the private list. I think
our workflow should be optimized for frequent actions and not infrequent
ones.
7. Should we switch all repos to GH issues except Accumulo core?
I think this a good example of how design by committee can go
wrong. This is a really confusing solution that does not
improve our workflow, so the benefits are not clear to me.
>
>>
>> - Josh
>>
>>
>> On 2/15/18 12:05 PM, Mike Walch wrote:
>>>
>>> I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
>>> GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial
>>> period,
>>> the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using
>>> Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> -0 as an initial reaction because I'm still not convinced that GH issues
> provides any additional features or better experience than JIRA does, and
> this change would only serve to fragment an already bare community.
>
> My concerns that would push that -0 to a -1 include (but aren't limited to):
>
> * Documentation/website update for the release process
> * Validation that our release processes on JIRA has similar functionality on
> GH issues
> * Updated contributor docs (removing JIRA related content, add an
> explanation as to the change)
> * CONTRIBUTING.md updated on relevant repos
I opened the following PR with a proposal for how we could start using github.
https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website/pull/59
>
> - Josh
>
>
> On 2/15/18 12:05 PM, Mike Walch wrote:
>>
>> I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
>> GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial
>> period,
>> the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using
>> Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
-0 as an initial reaction because I'm still not convinced that GH issues
provides any additional features or better experience than JIRA does,
and this change would only serve to fragment an already bare community.
My concerns that would push that -0 to a -1 include (but aren't limited to):
* Documentation/website update for the release process
* Validation that our release processes on JIRA has similar
functionality on GH issues
* Updated contributor docs (removing JIRA related content, add an
explanation as to the change)
* CONTRIBUTING.md updated on relevant repos
- Josh
On 2/15/18 12:05 PM, Mike Walch wrote:
> I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
> GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial period,
> the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using
> Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Mike Drob <md...@apache.org>.
Thanks Mike, those are great answers! They don't even have to be the final
answers, but I'm really happy to see that the migration path has been
thought about.
I disagree with you about the criticality of security issues and how we
handle them, but we can run a "fire drill" during the trial to fully
develop the process.
If you're volunteering to write a migration script using rest APIs (or
perhaps one already exists) then that addresses the last of my concerns to
starting a trial.
Obviously I'd consider completion and testing of the script a requirement
to completing the switch, but that's still a ways off.
Consider me officially onboard with running a trial.
Mike
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
> I am going to try to answer your questions. Keep in mind that my answers
> are how
> I would handle the transition. The point of the trial is to iterate and
> find the best
> solution for everyone.
>
>
> > Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a trial. How do
> we
> > do a release? What does aggregating issues fixed in a particular version
> > look like?
> >
>
> You can tag GH issues with a version but I think it's best to just go
> through commit history
> to compile the release notes. This should already be done as there is no
> guarantee
> even with Jira that all issues were labeled correctly. If you are using
> GitHub issues, all issue
> numbers in commits link back to the issue or pull request which we don't
> have with Jira right
> now.
>
>
> > A trial would also answer how we handle security issues - JIRA can make
> > certain issues only visible to PMC. Is there a GH issues equivalent?
> >
>
> I don't think there is GH issues equivalent but I don't think this is a
> critical feature.
> The PMC has record on the private email list of any security issues. If
> it's a true security
> issue, shouldn't it be fixed immediately anyways?
>
> Some issues are not answerable with a trial, however. What happens to our
> > old issues? Do we close them as Won't Fix? Do we migrate them? Do we lock
> > JIRA and leave the archives up as a historical reference? If there is
> some
> > aspect of a trial that would answer this, then I'm all ears.
> >
>
> As for the migration, both GitHub & Jira have REST APIs. I could create a
> script that
> reads all open Jira issues and creates a corresponding GitHub issue. Each
> issue
> on GitHub could link back the old Jira issues and vice versa. It wouldn't
> be a perfect
> transition as I am sure not all fields will be moved over but we could at
> least get title,
> descriptions, reporter, and affected versions moved. If there is a link
> back to the original
> Jira issue, you could always go back to view original issue. This migration
> could be
> tested on a fork before being done on the main repo. After the migration
> is done,
> I would lock Jira but leave it up for historical purposes.
>
>
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:26 PM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I want step back a little. I don't view this as just changing our issue
> > > tracker. I want to move to GitHub issues as I see a lot of benefit in
> > using
> > > one tool to manage issues, view/browse code, and review pull requests.
> > One
> > > tool makes contributing to open source so much easier. I think it will
> > > become the norm over time. This doesn't mean projects need to be locked
> > > into GitHub. Gitlab provides the same thing. I understand there are
> > > switching costs so I am on board with a trial. However, I think the
> > > benefits are worth the switch. You can fight this trend but I think
> it's
> > > like fighting the move from Subversion to Git.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2/15/18 6:18 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:08 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 2/15/18 4:56 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:55 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a
> > > migration
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> plan
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all
> the
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> answers up
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> front.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> You're right, we don't need to have all of the answers up
> front.
> > > >>>>>> This is one that I'd like to have some thought put into though.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> There's lots of things that are fine to handle as we approach
> it,
> > > but
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> this
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> one seems like it will lead to us having split issue trackers
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> for_years_
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> down the road.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> This is a good point I hadn't yet considered.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> There's not only the migration question that eventually needs to
> be
> > > >>>>> answered, but an immediate question of how will we determine when
> > we
> > > >>>>> can
> > > >>>>> release a version of Accumulo? Are there conventions/features on
> > the
> > > GH
> > > >>>>> issues side that will provide some logical analog to the
> fixVersion
> > > of
> > > >>>>> JIRA?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> These are all great questions... that could be answered with a
> > > trial...
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Shall I assume then that you are volunteering to handle all issue
> > > >>> management across the disparate systems for all releases?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> A trial is a good idea to determine _if we like the system_ and
> want
> > to
> > > >>> migrate to it. It's not a substitute for determining if the system
> is
> > > >>> _viable_.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >> I'm of a different opinion: I already know I like GitHub issues and
> > want
> > > >> to
> > > >> migrate to it. What I don't know is if it is viable for Accumulo's
> > > needs.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Glad you like GH issues, but that isn't not what is being discussed
> > here.
> > > > The matter at hand is figuring out the logistics of *how* do we move
> > to a
> > > > different issue tracker in a manner that doesn't derail the project
> > > > management of a fully-distributed team.
> > > >
> > > > I'm worried because I feel like there are valid concerns being
> brought
> > up
> > > > here without acknowledgement of the impact of those who only
> > participate
> > > > with Accumulo digitally.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org>.
> You're planning to document how GitHub tech would be used to make
releases on these repositories? And, we're in agreement that JIRA would not
be used at all for these repositories?
I think these repos are simple but I am happy to document any GH issues
workflows that are unclear to contributors. The use of GH issues for these
repos can be made clear at https://accumulo.apache.org/how-to-contribute/
I agree that JIRA should no longer be used for the secondary repositories.
Anyone who makes a new JIRA issue for these repos can just be told to use
GitHub instead.
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:40 PM, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> After the rest of the discussion, I feel like I need to be explicit (so,
> I'm sorry if I'm being pedantic and we're already in agreement here):
>
> You're planning to document how GitHub tech would be used to make releases
> on these repositories? And, we're in agreement that JIRA would not be used
> at all for these repositories?
>
> In short, +0 as long as the process for releasing software is clear, I
> don't have issues with the process using different tooling than we
> presently use (although, still don't see the benefit to changing).
>
>
> On 3/1/18 2:41 PM, Mike Walch wrote:
>
>> I would like to start up this discussion again. I don't think we have
>> reached consensus on moving the primary Accumulo repo to GitHub issues.
>> The
>> primary repo has common workflows (i.e creating issues that affect
>> multiple
>> versions) that don't easily transition to GitHub issues. I have heard
>> several solutions but no consensus.
>>
>> As for moving our secondary repos (listed below), this seems much easier
>> and I haven't heard any concerns so far. Does anyone have concerns about
>> moving these repos?
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker
>> https://github.com/apache/accumulo-examples
>> https://github.com/apache/accumulo-testing
>> https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website
>> https://github.com/apache/accumulo-wikisearch
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a trial. How
>>>>>
>>>> do
>>>
>>>> we
>>>>
>>>>> do a release? What does aggregating issues fixed in a particular
>>>>>
>>>> version
>>>
>>>> look like?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You can tag GH issues with a version but I think it's best to just go
>>>> through commit history
>>>> to compile the release notes. This should already be done as there is no
>>>> guarantee
>>>> even with Jira that all issues were labeled correctly. If you are using
>>>> GitHub issues, all issue
>>>> numbers in commits link back to the issue or pull request which we don't
>>>> have with Jira right
>>>> now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This gets to an issue I have. What's our source of truth about "X is
>>> fixed
>>> in Y" during the trial? I have been assuming that JIRA is currently our
>>> source of truth, but maybe that's wrong. Is it the release notes?
>>>
>>> IMHO, Git is a poor choice for the source of truth due to the
>>> immutability
>>> of commit messages, at least in ASF contexts since we can't do force
>>> pushes
>>> (in at least some branches).
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> busbey
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
After the rest of the discussion, I feel like I need to be explicit (so,
I'm sorry if I'm being pedantic and we're already in agreement here):
You're planning to document how GitHub tech would be used to make
releases on these repositories? And, we're in agreement that JIRA would
not be used at all for these repositories?
In short, +0 as long as the process for releasing software is clear, I
don't have issues with the process using different tooling than we
presently use (although, still don't see the benefit to changing).
On 3/1/18 2:41 PM, Mike Walch wrote:
> I would like to start up this discussion again. I don't think we have
> reached consensus on moving the primary Accumulo repo to GitHub issues. The
> primary repo has common workflows (i.e creating issues that affect multiple
> versions) that don't easily transition to GitHub issues. I have heard
> several solutions but no consensus.
>
> As for moving our secondary repos (listed below), this seems much easier
> and I haven't heard any concerns so far. Does anyone have concerns about
> moving these repos?
>
> https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker
> https://github.com/apache/accumulo-examples
> https://github.com/apache/accumulo-testing
> https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website
> https://github.com/apache/accumulo-wikisearch
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a trial. How
>> do
>>> we
>>>> do a release? What does aggregating issues fixed in a particular
>> version
>>>> look like?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can tag GH issues with a version but I think it's best to just go
>>> through commit history
>>> to compile the release notes. This should already be done as there is no
>>> guarantee
>>> even with Jira that all issues were labeled correctly. If you are using
>>> GitHub issues, all issue
>>> numbers in commits link back to the issue or pull request which we don't
>>> have with Jira right
>>> now.
>>>
>>>
>> This gets to an issue I have. What's our source of truth about "X is fixed
>> in Y" during the trial? I have been assuming that JIRA is currently our
>> source of truth, but maybe that's wrong. Is it the release notes?
>>
>> IMHO, Git is a poor choice for the source of truth due to the immutability
>> of commit messages, at least in ASF contexts since we can't do force pushes
>> (in at least some branches).
>>
>>
>> --
>> busbey
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com>.
I'm -0.
On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> Asking if he's -0 or -1.
>
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018, 11:08 Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Are you asking if Mike is "-0" vs "-1"? Or just if he has an opposition
> at
> > all?
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2018/03/02 01:10:16, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Is your concern significant enough to oppose the proposed action from
> > Mike
> > > Walch?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018, 19:56 Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > My only concern is of the sort that contributors will be expected to
> > have
> > > > different workflows based on what they are working on.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I would like to start up this discussion again. I don't think we
> have
> > > > > reached consensus on moving the primary Accumulo repo to GitHub
> > issues.
> > > > The
> > > > > primary repo has common workflows (i.e creating issues that affect
> > > > multiple
> > > > > versions) that don't easily transition to GitHub issues. I have
> heard
> > > > > several solutions but no consensus.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for moving our secondary repos (listed below), this seems much
> > easier
> > > > > and I haven't heard any concerns so far. Does anyone have concerns
> > about
> > > > > moving these repos?
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-examples
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-testing
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-wikisearch
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a
> > trial.
> > > > How
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > do a release? What does aggregating issues fixed in a
> > particular
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > look like?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can tag GH issues with a version but I think it's best to
> > just go
> > > > > > > through commit history
> > > > > > > to compile the release notes. This should already be done as
> > there is
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > guarantee
> > > > > > > even with Jira that all issues were labeled correctly. If you
> are
> > > > using
> > > > > > > GitHub issues, all issue
> > > > > > > numbers in commits link back to the issue or pull request which
> > we
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > have with Jira right
> > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > This gets to an issue I have. What's our source of truth about "X
> > is
> > > > > fixed
> > > > > > in Y" during the trial? I have been assuming that JIRA is
> > currently our
> > > > > > source of truth, but maybe that's wrong. Is it the release notes?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IMHO, Git is a poor choice for the source of truth due to the
> > > > > immutability
> > > > > > of commit messages, at least in ASF contexts since we can't do
> > force
> > > > > pushes
> > > > > > (in at least some branches).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > busbey
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
Asking if he's -0 or -1.
On Sat, Mar 3, 2018, 11:08 Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
> Are you asking if Mike is "-0" vs "-1"? Or just if he has an opposition at
> all?
>
>
>
> On 2018/03/02 01:10:16, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Is your concern significant enough to oppose the proposed action from
> Mike
> > Walch?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018, 19:56 Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > > My only concern is of the sort that contributors will be expected to
> have
> > > different workflows based on what they are working on.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would like to start up this discussion again. I don't think we have
> > > > reached consensus on moving the primary Accumulo repo to GitHub
> issues.
> > > The
> > > > primary repo has common workflows (i.e creating issues that affect
> > > multiple
> > > > versions) that don't easily transition to GitHub issues. I have heard
> > > > several solutions but no consensus.
> > > >
> > > > As for moving our secondary repos (listed below), this seems much
> easier
> > > > and I haven't heard any concerns so far. Does anyone have concerns
> about
> > > > moving these repos?
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker
> > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-examples
> > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-testing
> > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website
> > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-wikisearch
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a
> trial.
> > > How
> > > > > do
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > do a release? What does aggregating issues fixed in a
> particular
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > look like?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can tag GH issues with a version but I think it's best to
> just go
> > > > > > through commit history
> > > > > > to compile the release notes. This should already be done as
> there is
> > > > no
> > > > > > guarantee
> > > > > > even with Jira that all issues were labeled correctly. If you are
> > > using
> > > > > > GitHub issues, all issue
> > > > > > numbers in commits link back to the issue or pull request which
> we
> > > > don't
> > > > > > have with Jira right
> > > > > > now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > This gets to an issue I have. What's our source of truth about "X
> is
> > > > fixed
> > > > > in Y" during the trial? I have been assuming that JIRA is
> currently our
> > > > > source of truth, but maybe that's wrong. Is it the release notes?
> > > > >
> > > > > IMHO, Git is a poor choice for the source of truth due to the
> > > > immutability
> > > > > of commit messages, at least in ASF contexts since we can't do
> force
> > > > pushes
> > > > > (in at least some branches).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > busbey
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org>.
Are you asking if Mike is "-0" vs "-1"? Or just if he has an opposition at all?
On 2018/03/02 01:10:16, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> Is your concern significant enough to oppose the proposed action from Mike
> Walch?
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018, 19:56 Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > My only concern is of the sort that contributors will be expected to have
> > different workflows based on what they are working on.
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to start up this discussion again. I don't think we have
> > > reached consensus on moving the primary Accumulo repo to GitHub issues.
> > The
> > > primary repo has common workflows (i.e creating issues that affect
> > multiple
> > > versions) that don't easily transition to GitHub issues. I have heard
> > > several solutions but no consensus.
> > >
> > > As for moving our secondary repos (listed below), this seems much easier
> > > and I haven't heard any concerns so far. Does anyone have concerns about
> > > moving these repos?
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker
> > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-examples
> > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-testing
> > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website
> > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-wikisearch
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a trial.
> > How
> > > > do
> > > > > we
> > > > > > do a release? What does aggregating issues fixed in a particular
> > > > version
> > > > > > look like?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You can tag GH issues with a version but I think it's best to just go
> > > > > through commit history
> > > > > to compile the release notes. This should already be done as there is
> > > no
> > > > > guarantee
> > > > > even with Jira that all issues were labeled correctly. If you are
> > using
> > > > > GitHub issues, all issue
> > > > > numbers in commits link back to the issue or pull request which we
> > > don't
> > > > > have with Jira right
> > > > > now.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > This gets to an issue I have. What's our source of truth about "X is
> > > fixed
> > > > in Y" during the trial? I have been assuming that JIRA is currently our
> > > > source of truth, but maybe that's wrong. Is it the release notes?
> > > >
> > > > IMHO, Git is a poor choice for the source of truth due to the
> > > immutability
> > > > of commit messages, at least in ASF contexts since we can't do force
> > > pushes
> > > > (in at least some branches).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > busbey
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
Is your concern significant enough to oppose the proposed action from Mike
Walch?
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018, 19:56 Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> My only concern is of the sort that contributors will be expected to have
> different workflows based on what they are working on.
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I would like to start up this discussion again. I don't think we have
> > reached consensus on moving the primary Accumulo repo to GitHub issues.
> The
> > primary repo has common workflows (i.e creating issues that affect
> multiple
> > versions) that don't easily transition to GitHub issues. I have heard
> > several solutions but no consensus.
> >
> > As for moving our secondary repos (listed below), this seems much easier
> > and I haven't heard any concerns so far. Does anyone have concerns about
> > moving these repos?
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker
> > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-examples
> > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-testing
> > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website
> > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-wikisearch
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a trial.
> How
> > > do
> > > > we
> > > > > do a release? What does aggregating issues fixed in a particular
> > > version
> > > > > look like?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You can tag GH issues with a version but I think it's best to just go
> > > > through commit history
> > > > to compile the release notes. This should already be done as there is
> > no
> > > > guarantee
> > > > even with Jira that all issues were labeled correctly. If you are
> using
> > > > GitHub issues, all issue
> > > > numbers in commits link back to the issue or pull request which we
> > don't
> > > > have with Jira right
> > > > now.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > This gets to an issue I have. What's our source of truth about "X is
> > fixed
> > > in Y" during the trial? I have been assuming that JIRA is currently our
> > > source of truth, but maybe that's wrong. Is it the release notes?
> > >
> > > IMHO, Git is a poor choice for the source of truth due to the
> > immutability
> > > of commit messages, at least in ASF contexts since we can't do force
> > pushes
> > > (in at least some branches).
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > busbey
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com>.
My only concern is of the sort that contributors will be expected to have
different workflows based on what they are working on.
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
> I would like to start up this discussion again. I don't think we have
> reached consensus on moving the primary Accumulo repo to GitHub issues. The
> primary repo has common workflows (i.e creating issues that affect multiple
> versions) that don't easily transition to GitHub issues. I have heard
> several solutions but no consensus.
>
> As for moving our secondary repos (listed below), this seems much easier
> and I haven't heard any concerns so far. Does anyone have concerns about
> moving these repos?
>
> https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker
> https://github.com/apache/accumulo-examples
> https://github.com/apache/accumulo-testing
> https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website
> https://github.com/apache/accumulo-wikisearch
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a trial. How
> > do
> > > we
> > > > do a release? What does aggregating issues fixed in a particular
> > version
> > > > look like?
> > > >
> > >
> > > You can tag GH issues with a version but I think it's best to just go
> > > through commit history
> > > to compile the release notes. This should already be done as there is
> no
> > > guarantee
> > > even with Jira that all issues were labeled correctly. If you are using
> > > GitHub issues, all issue
> > > numbers in commits link back to the issue or pull request which we
> don't
> > > have with Jira right
> > > now.
> > >
> > >
> > This gets to an issue I have. What's our source of truth about "X is
> fixed
> > in Y" during the trial? I have been assuming that JIRA is currently our
> > source of truth, but maybe that's wrong. Is it the release notes?
> >
> > IMHO, Git is a poor choice for the source of truth due to the
> immutability
> > of commit messages, at least in ASF contexts since we can't do force
> pushes
> > (in at least some branches).
> >
> >
> > --
> > busbey
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org>.
I would like to start up this discussion again. I don't think we have
reached consensus on moving the primary Accumulo repo to GitHub issues. The
primary repo has common workflows (i.e creating issues that affect multiple
versions) that don't easily transition to GitHub issues. I have heard
several solutions but no consensus.
As for moving our secondary repos (listed below), this seems much easier
and I haven't heard any concerns so far. Does anyone have concerns about
moving these repos?
https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker
https://github.com/apache/accumulo-examples
https://github.com/apache/accumulo-testing
https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website
https://github.com/apache/accumulo-wikisearch
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a trial. How
> do
> > we
> > > do a release? What does aggregating issues fixed in a particular
> version
> > > look like?
> > >
> >
> > You can tag GH issues with a version but I think it's best to just go
> > through commit history
> > to compile the release notes. This should already be done as there is no
> > guarantee
> > even with Jira that all issues were labeled correctly. If you are using
> > GitHub issues, all issue
> > numbers in commits link back to the issue or pull request which we don't
> > have with Jira right
> > now.
> >
> >
> This gets to an issue I have. What's our source of truth about "X is fixed
> in Y" during the trial? I have been assuming that JIRA is currently our
> source of truth, but maybe that's wrong. Is it the release notes?
>
> IMHO, Git is a poor choice for the source of truth due to the immutability
> of commit messages, at least in ASF contexts since we can't do force pushes
> (in at least some branches).
>
>
> --
> busbey
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> > Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a trial. How do
> we
> > do a release? What does aggregating issues fixed in a particular version
> > look like?
> >
>
> You can tag GH issues with a version but I think it's best to just go
> through commit history
> to compile the release notes. This should already be done as there is no
> guarantee
> even with Jira that all issues were labeled correctly. If you are using
> GitHub issues, all issue
> numbers in commits link back to the issue or pull request which we don't
> have with Jira right
> now.
>
>
This gets to an issue I have. What's our source of truth about "X is fixed
in Y" during the trial? I have been assuming that JIRA is currently our
source of truth, but maybe that's wrong. Is it the release notes?
IMHO, Git is a poor choice for the source of truth due to the immutability
of commit messages, at least in ASF contexts since we can't do force pushes
(in at least some branches).
--
busbey
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org>.
I am going to try to answer your questions. Keep in mind that my answers
are how
I would handle the transition. The point of the trial is to iterate and
find the best
solution for everyone.
> Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a trial. How do we
> do a release? What does aggregating issues fixed in a particular version
> look like?
>
You can tag GH issues with a version but I think it's best to just go
through commit history
to compile the release notes. This should already be done as there is no
guarantee
even with Jira that all issues were labeled correctly. If you are using
GitHub issues, all issue
numbers in commits link back to the issue or pull request which we don't
have with Jira right
now.
> A trial would also answer how we handle security issues - JIRA can make
> certain issues only visible to PMC. Is there a GH issues equivalent?
>
I don't think there is GH issues equivalent but I don't think this is a
critical feature.
The PMC has record on the private email list of any security issues. If
it's a true security
issue, shouldn't it be fixed immediately anyways?
Some issues are not answerable with a trial, however. What happens to our
> old issues? Do we close them as Won't Fix? Do we migrate them? Do we lock
> JIRA and leave the archives up as a historical reference? If there is some
> aspect of a trial that would answer this, then I'm all ears.
>
As for the migration, both GitHub & Jira have REST APIs. I could create a
script that
reads all open Jira issues and creates a corresponding GitHub issue. Each
issue
on GitHub could link back the old Jira issues and vice versa. It wouldn't
be a perfect
transition as I am sure not all fields will be moved over but we could at
least get title,
descriptions, reporter, and affected versions moved. If there is a link
back to the original
Jira issue, you could always go back to view original issue. This migration
could be
tested on a fork before being done on the main repo. After the migration
is done,
I would lock Jira but leave it up for historical purposes.
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:26 PM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I want step back a little. I don't view this as just changing our issue
> > tracker. I want to move to GitHub issues as I see a lot of benefit in
> using
> > one tool to manage issues, view/browse code, and review pull requests.
> One
> > tool makes contributing to open source so much easier. I think it will
> > become the norm over time. This doesn't mean projects need to be locked
> > into GitHub. Gitlab provides the same thing. I understand there are
> > switching costs so I am on board with a trial. However, I think the
> > benefits are worth the switch. You can fight this trend but I think it's
> > like fighting the move from Subversion to Git.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2/15/18 6:18 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:08 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 2/15/18 4:56 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:55 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a
> > migration
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> plan
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all the
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> answers up
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> front.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> You're right, we don't need to have all of the answers up front.
> > >>>>>> This is one that I'd like to have some thought put into though.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> There's lots of things that are fine to handle as we approach it,
> > but
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> this
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> one seems like it will lead to us having split issue trackers
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> for_years_
> > >>>
> > >>>> down the road.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> This is a good point I hadn't yet considered.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> There's not only the migration question that eventually needs to be
> > >>>>> answered, but an immediate question of how will we determine when
> we
> > >>>>> can
> > >>>>> release a version of Accumulo? Are there conventions/features on
> the
> > GH
> > >>>>> issues side that will provide some logical analog to the fixVersion
> > of
> > >>>>> JIRA?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> These are all great questions... that could be answered with a
> > trial...
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> Shall I assume then that you are volunteering to handle all issue
> > >>> management across the disparate systems for all releases?
> > >>>
> > >>> A trial is a good idea to determine _if we like the system_ and want
> to
> > >>> migrate to it. It's not a substitute for determining if the system is
> > >>> _viable_.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> I'm of a different opinion: I already know I like GitHub issues and
> want
> > >> to
> > >> migrate to it. What I don't know is if it is viable for Accumulo's
> > needs.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Glad you like GH issues, but that isn't not what is being discussed
> here.
> > > The matter at hand is figuring out the logistics of *how* do we move
> to a
> > > different issue tracker in a manner that doesn't derail the project
> > > management of a fully-distributed team.
> > >
> > > I'm worried because I feel like there are valid concerns being brought
> up
> > > here without acknowledgement of the impact of those who only
> participate
> > > with Accumulo digitally.
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Mike Drob <md...@apache.org>.
The move from SVN to GIT had a clear plan for what happens to the old code,
and a migration strategy for moving commits over.
I think we're having trouble communicating here, but I'm really coming at
this from the perspective of "what if this is fabulously successful" - I
don't want to be seen as the curmudgeon impeding community because this is
how things were back in my day or whatever.
Let's say we do a trial. Let's say that everybody loves it, everybody
becomes 2x more productive, we get 3x more new contributors, whatever. All
good things!
Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a trial. How do we
do a release? What does aggregating issues fixed in a particular version
look like? Sure, I'm fine with people not knowing now, and giving a
concrete answer as to how a trial would help them figure this out.
A trial would also answer how we handle security issues - JIRA can make
certain issues only visible to PMC. Is there a GH issues equivalent?
Probably. Do I want to discover that there isn't a way to do this in three
years when somebody privately reports one? Absolutely not. This should
actually be answerable before the trial, but is something that should be
tested during. I assume there's a workable solution, but we need to know
what it is.
Some issues are not answerable with a trial, however. What happens to our
old issues? Do we close them as Won't Fix? Do we migrate them? Do we lock
JIRA and leave the archives up as a historical reference? If there is some
aspect of a trial that would answer this, then I'm all ears.
Again, I'm not trying to fight growth here. I'm assuming that switching
will be a given once the trial gets off the ground. I know that those
advocating for it already like GH Issues, otherwise they wouldn't be
proposing this change. My questions are all of the nature, "after we
switch, what do we do with [current process X]?"
Mike
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:26 PM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
> I want step back a little. I don't view this as just changing our issue
> tracker. I want to move to GitHub issues as I see a lot of benefit in using
> one tool to manage issues, view/browse code, and review pull requests. One
> tool makes contributing to open source so much easier. I think it will
> become the norm over time. This doesn't mean projects need to be locked
> into GitHub. Gitlab provides the same thing. I understand there are
> switching costs so I am on board with a trial. However, I think the
> benefits are worth the switch. You can fight this trend but I think it's
> like fighting the move from Subversion to Git.
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On 2/15/18 6:18 PM, Christopher wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:08 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/15/18 4:56 PM, Christopher wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:55 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a
> migration
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> plan
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all the
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> answers up
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> front.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You're right, we don't need to have all of the answers up front.
> >>>>>> This is one that I'd like to have some thought put into though.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There's lots of things that are fine to handle as we approach it,
> but
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> this
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> one seems like it will lead to us having split issue trackers
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> for_years_
> >>>
> >>>> down the road.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> This is a good point I hadn't yet considered.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There's not only the migration question that eventually needs to be
> >>>>> answered, but an immediate question of how will we determine when we
> >>>>> can
> >>>>> release a version of Accumulo? Are there conventions/features on the
> GH
> >>>>> issues side that will provide some logical analog to the fixVersion
> of
> >>>>> JIRA?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> These are all great questions... that could be answered with a
> trial...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Shall I assume then that you are volunteering to handle all issue
> >>> management across the disparate systems for all releases?
> >>>
> >>> A trial is a good idea to determine _if we like the system_ and want to
> >>> migrate to it. It's not a substitute for determining if the system is
> >>> _viable_.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I'm of a different opinion: I already know I like GitHub issues and want
> >> to
> >> migrate to it. What I don't know is if it is viable for Accumulo's
> needs.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Glad you like GH issues, but that isn't not what is being discussed here.
> > The matter at hand is figuring out the logistics of *how* do we move to a
> > different issue tracker in a manner that doesn't derail the project
> > management of a fully-distributed team.
> >
> > I'm worried because I feel like there are valid concerns being brought up
> > here without acknowledgement of the impact of those who only participate
> > with Accumulo digitally.
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org>.
I want step back a little. I don't view this as just changing our issue
tracker. I want to move to GitHub issues as I see a lot of benefit in using
one tool to manage issues, view/browse code, and review pull requests. One
tool makes contributing to open source so much easier. I think it will
become the norm over time. This doesn't mean projects need to be locked
into GitHub. Gitlab provides the same thing. I understand there are
switching costs so I am on board with a trial. However, I think the
benefits are worth the switch. You can fight this trend but I think it's
like fighting the move from Subversion to Git.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 2/15/18 6:18 PM, Christopher wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:08 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/15/18 4:56 PM, Christopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:55 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> plan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> answers up
>>>>>
>>>>>> front.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're right, we don't need to have all of the answers up front.
>>>>>> This is one that I'd like to have some thought put into though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's lots of things that are fine to handle as we approach it, but
>>>>>>
>>>>> this
>>>>>
>>>>>> one seems like it will lead to us having split issue trackers
>>>>>>
>>>>> for_years_
>>>
>>>> down the road.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> This is a good point I hadn't yet considered.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's not only the migration question that eventually needs to be
>>>>> answered, but an immediate question of how will we determine when we
>>>>> can
>>>>> release a version of Accumulo? Are there conventions/features on the GH
>>>>> issues side that will provide some logical analog to the fixVersion of
>>>>> JIRA?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> These are all great questions... that could be answered with a trial...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Shall I assume then that you are volunteering to handle all issue
>>> management across the disparate systems for all releases?
>>>
>>> A trial is a good idea to determine _if we like the system_ and want to
>>> migrate to it. It's not a substitute for determining if the system is
>>> _viable_.
>>>
>>>
>> I'm of a different opinion: I already know I like GitHub issues and want
>> to
>> migrate to it. What I don't know is if it is viable for Accumulo's needs.
>>
>
>
> Glad you like GH issues, but that isn't not what is being discussed here.
> The matter at hand is figuring out the logistics of *how* do we move to a
> different issue tracker in a manner that doesn't derail the project
> management of a fully-distributed team.
>
> I'm worried because I feel like there are valid concerns being brought up
> here without acknowledgement of the impact of those who only participate
> with Accumulo digitally.
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
On 2/15/18 6:18 PM, Christopher wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:08 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/18 4:56 PM, Christopher wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:55 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
>>>>>>> What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration
>>>>>> plan
>>>>>>> for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all the
>>>> answers up
>>>>>> front.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You're right, we don't need to have all of the answers up front.
>>>>> This is one that I'd like to have some thought put into though.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's lots of things that are fine to handle as we approach it, but
>>>> this
>>>>> one seems like it will lead to us having split issue trackers
>> for_years_
>>>>> down the road.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a good point I hadn't yet considered.
>>>>
>>>> There's not only the migration question that eventually needs to be
>>>> answered, but an immediate question of how will we determine when we can
>>>> release a version of Accumulo? Are there conventions/features on the GH
>>>> issues side that will provide some logical analog to the fixVersion of
>>>> JIRA?
>>>>
>>>
>>> These are all great questions... that could be answered with a trial...
>>>
>>
>> Shall I assume then that you are volunteering to handle all issue
>> management across the disparate systems for all releases?
>>
>> A trial is a good idea to determine _if we like the system_ and want to
>> migrate to it. It's not a substitute for determining if the system is
>> _viable_.
>>
>
> I'm of a different opinion: I already know I like GitHub issues and want to
> migrate to it. What I don't know is if it is viable for Accumulo's needs.
Glad you like GH issues, but that isn't not what is being discussed
here. The matter at hand is figuring out the logistics of *how* do we
move to a different issue tracker in a manner that doesn't derail the
project management of a fully-distributed team.
I'm worried because I feel like there are valid concerns being brought
up here without acknowledgement of the impact of those who only
participate with Accumulo digitally.
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:08 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 2/15/18 4:56 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:55 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> >>>>> What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration
> >>>> plan
> >>>>> for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all the
> >> answers up
> >>>> front.
> >>>>
> >>> You're right, we don't need to have all of the answers up front.
> >>> This is one that I'd like to have some thought put into though.
> >>>
> >>> There's lots of things that are fine to handle as we approach it, but
> >> this
> >>> one seems like it will lead to us having split issue trackers
> for_years_
> >>> down the road.
> >>>
> >>
> >> This is a good point I hadn't yet considered.
> >>
> >> There's not only the migration question that eventually needs to be
> >> answered, but an immediate question of how will we determine when we can
> >> release a version of Accumulo? Are there conventions/features on the GH
> >> issues side that will provide some logical analog to the fixVersion of
> >> JIRA?
> >>
> >
> > These are all great questions... that could be answered with a trial...
> >
>
> Shall I assume then that you are volunteering to handle all issue
> management across the disparate systems for all releases?
>
> A trial is a good idea to determine _if we like the system_ and want to
> migrate to it. It's not a substitute for determining if the system is
> _viable_.
>
I'm of a different opinion: I already know I like GitHub issues and want to
migrate to it. What I don't know is if it is viable for Accumulo's needs.
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
On 2/15/18 4:56 PM, Christopher wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:55 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
>>>>> What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration
>>>> plan
>>>>> for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all the
>> answers up
>>>> front.
>>>>
>>> You're right, we don't need to have all of the answers up front.
>>> This is one that I'd like to have some thought put into though.
>>>
>>> There's lots of things that are fine to handle as we approach it, but
>> this
>>> one seems like it will lead to us having split issue trackers for_years_
>>> down the road.
>>>
>>
>> This is a good point I hadn't yet considered.
>>
>> There's not only the migration question that eventually needs to be
>> answered, but an immediate question of how will we determine when we can
>> release a version of Accumulo? Are there conventions/features on the GH
>> issues side that will provide some logical analog to the fixVersion of
>> JIRA?
>>
>
> These are all great questions... that could be answered with a trial...
>
Shall I assume then that you are volunteering to handle all issue
management across the disparate systems for all releases?
A trial is a good idea to determine _if we like the system_ and want to
migrate to it. It's not a substitute for determining if the system is
_viable_.
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:55 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> >>> What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration
> >> plan
> >>> for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all the
> answers up
> >> front.
> >>
> > You're right, we don't need to have all of the answers up front.
> > This is one that I'd like to have some thought put into though.
> >
> > There's lots of things that are fine to handle as we approach it, but
> this
> > one seems like it will lead to us having split issue trackers for_years_
> > down the road.
> >
>
> This is a good point I hadn't yet considered.
>
> There's not only the migration question that eventually needs to be
> answered, but an immediate question of how will we determine when we can
> release a version of Accumulo? Are there conventions/features on the GH
> issues side that will provide some logical analog to the fixVersion of
> JIRA?
>
These are all great questions... that could be answered with a trial...
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
>>> What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration
>> plan
>>> for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
>>>
>>>
>> As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all the answers up
>> front.
>>
> You're right, we don't need to have all of the answers up front.
> This is one that I'd like to have some thought put into though.
>
> There's lots of things that are fine to handle as we approach it, but this
> one seems like it will lead to us having split issue trackers for_years_
> down the road.
>
This is a good point I hadn't yet considered.
There's not only the migration question that eventually needs to be
answered, but an immediate question of how will we determine when we can
release a version of Accumulo? Are there conventions/features on the GH
issues side that will provide some logical analog to the fixVersion of JIRA?
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Mike Drob <md...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 3:05 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 2:55 PM Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > While I think Spark's reasons might be interesting, I find it hard to
> > > believe that any reason they might have would be so compelling as to
> > > prevent us from even performing a trial. I think should still
> experiment
> > > with GH issues, as a trial, regardless of what additional input we
> might
> > > get from other-than-hands-on experience during that trial.
> > >
> > > I can think of several.
> >
> > Let's not assume that we have ASF policy blessing to do this. Somebody
> > should research that. Or tell me that they've already researched it. It's
> > likely ok, but I don't want to do dive headfirst into something stupid.
> >
> >
> GH issues are supported by INFRA.
>
> Cool, that gives me more confidence in our ability to succeed.
>
> > What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration
> plan
> > for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
> >
> >
> As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all the answers up
> front.
>
You're right, we don't need to have all of the answers up front.
This is one that I'd like to have some thought put into though.
There's lots of things that are fine to handle as we approach it, but this
one seems like it will lead to us having split issue trackers for _years_
down the road.
>
> > And this part is a little glib, but what would be a sign to the community
> > that Apache is not the right fit for Accumulo? There are countless
> > successful open source projects using GitHub as the canonical repo
> > (complete with CI, issues, wiki, and site). Projects can use Google
> groups
> > for mailing lists when necessary instead of ASF lists. I see a slow
> trickle
> > in the Accumulo community that some given self-service option is better
> > than the equivalent provided by ASF Infra. Sure, there's lots of
> > alternatives out there for much of the tooling, but I like the
> convenience
> > of having it handled for me. Some people can disagree here, and that's
> ok.
> >
> >
> Both issue trackers are supported by ASF INFRA.
>
>
> > Anyway, please please address my first two point, and at least consider
> the
> > third. Not necessarily you, Christopher; open question to the proponents.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:17 PM Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Before switching to GitHub issues, I would like somebody to do an
> > > > investigation into why Apache Spark isn't using them. They are heavy
> > > heavy
> > > > heavy users of PRs, but don't use issues and I'd like to see if
> they've
> > > > already done the leg-work on figuring this out.
> > > >
> > > > Not saying that we need to be like Spark in every way, but it's a
> > > community
> > > > that may have already gone down this path.
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 for a trial... because we shouldn't be afraid to experiment with
> > our
> > > > > workflows. I also like working on GH, and want to see if it will
> > result
> > > > in
> > > > > a valuable change or not for Accumulo, and if it is, I'd like to
> > switch
> > > > to
> > > > > it at some point (I like the trial first, because I don't know if
> > there
> > > > > will be unforeseen problems).
> > > > >
> > > > > Additionally, I think that:
> > > > > GH issue tracker could potentially lower the bar to reporting
> > issues
> > > > > since many devs use GitHub already.
> > > > > It would allow integration/exposure via external initiatives,
> like
> > > > > Hacktoberfest by using GH labels.
> > > > > It could improve readability of commit logs by avoiding lengthy
> > links
> > > > to
> > > > > JIRA issue numbers.
> > > > > No need to create an issue for the sole purpose of "checking the
> > box"
> > > > to
> > > > > have an issue to mention in the log (since PRs are issues).
> > > > > It would improve linking between PRs and issues.
> > > > > Markdown in GH is much more friendly than JIRA's syntax.
> > > > > Reduced mailing list spam from redundant emails and integration
> > with
> > > > > JIRA.
> > > > > JIRA is frequently offline for maintenance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some potential downsides:
> > > > > Lack of multiple milestones for an issue (there are workarounds)
> > > > > Lack of batch issue changes
> > > > > Change in momentum could be confusing to contributors
> > > > >
> > > > > I think a trial period could help us understand whether the
> potential
> > > > > downsides are worse than the benefits, and whether or not we can
> > > develop
> > > > > workflows that mitigate against those downsides.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub
> > issues.
> > > > > > GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this
> trial
> > > > > period,
> > > > > > the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep
> > > using
> > > > > > Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 2:55 PM Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > While I think Spark's reasons might be interesting, I find it hard to
> > believe that any reason they might have would be so compelling as to
> > prevent us from even performing a trial. I think should still experiment
> > with GH issues, as a trial, regardless of what additional input we might
> > get from other-than-hands-on experience during that trial.
> >
> > I can think of several.
>
> Let's not assume that we have ASF policy blessing to do this. Somebody
> should research that. Or tell me that they've already researched it. It's
> likely ok, but I don't want to do dive headfirst into something stupid.
>
>
GH issues are supported by INFRA.
> What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration plan
> for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
>
>
As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all the answers up
front.
> And this part is a little glib, but what would be a sign to the community
> that Apache is not the right fit for Accumulo? There are countless
> successful open source projects using GitHub as the canonical repo
> (complete with CI, issues, wiki, and site). Projects can use Google groups
> for mailing lists when necessary instead of ASF lists. I see a slow trickle
> in the Accumulo community that some given self-service option is better
> than the equivalent provided by ASF Infra. Sure, there's lots of
> alternatives out there for much of the tooling, but I like the convenience
> of having it handled for me. Some people can disagree here, and that's ok.
>
>
Both issue trackers are supported by ASF INFRA.
> Anyway, please please address my first two point, and at least consider the
> third. Not necessarily you, Christopher; open question to the proponents.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:17 PM Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Before switching to GitHub issues, I would like somebody to do an
> > > investigation into why Apache Spark isn't using them. They are heavy
> > heavy
> > > heavy users of PRs, but don't use issues and I'd like to see if they've
> > > already done the leg-work on figuring this out.
> > >
> > > Not saying that we need to be like Spark in every way, but it's a
> > community
> > > that may have already gone down this path.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for a trial... because we shouldn't be afraid to experiment with
> our
> > > > workflows. I also like working on GH, and want to see if it will
> result
> > > in
> > > > a valuable change or not for Accumulo, and if it is, I'd like to
> switch
> > > to
> > > > it at some point (I like the trial first, because I don't know if
> there
> > > > will be unforeseen problems).
> > > >
> > > > Additionally, I think that:
> > > > GH issue tracker could potentially lower the bar to reporting
> issues
> > > > since many devs use GitHub already.
> > > > It would allow integration/exposure via external initiatives, like
> > > > Hacktoberfest by using GH labels.
> > > > It could improve readability of commit logs by avoiding lengthy
> links
> > > to
> > > > JIRA issue numbers.
> > > > No need to create an issue for the sole purpose of "checking the
> box"
> > > to
> > > > have an issue to mention in the log (since PRs are issues).
> > > > It would improve linking between PRs and issues.
> > > > Markdown in GH is much more friendly than JIRA's syntax.
> > > > Reduced mailing list spam from redundant emails and integration
> with
> > > > JIRA.
> > > > JIRA is frequently offline for maintenance.
> > > >
> > > > Some potential downsides:
> > > > Lack of multiple milestones for an issue (there are workarounds)
> > > > Lack of batch issue changes
> > > > Change in momentum could be confusing to contributors
> > > >
> > > > I think a trial period could help us understand whether the potential
> > > > downsides are worse than the benefits, and whether or not we can
> > develop
> > > > workflows that mitigate against those downsides.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub
> issues.
> > > > > GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial
> > > > period,
> > > > > the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep
> > using
> > > > > Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Mike Drob <md...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> While I think Spark's reasons might be interesting, I find it hard to
> believe that any reason they might have would be so compelling as to
> prevent us from even performing a trial. I think should still experiment
> with GH issues, as a trial, regardless of what additional input we might
> get from other-than-hands-on experience during that trial.
>
> I can think of several.
Let's not assume that we have ASF policy blessing to do this. Somebody
should research that. Or tell me that they've already researched it. It's
likely ok, but I don't want to do dive headfirst into something stupid.
What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration plan
for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
And this part is a little glib, but what would be a sign to the community
that Apache is not the right fit for Accumulo? There are countless
successful open source projects using GitHub as the canonical repo
(complete with CI, issues, wiki, and site). Projects can use Google groups
for mailing lists when necessary instead of ASF lists. I see a slow trickle
in the Accumulo community that some given self-service option is better
than the equivalent provided by ASF Infra. Sure, there's lots of
alternatives out there for much of the tooling, but I like the convenience
of having it handled for me. Some people can disagree here, and that's ok.
Anyway, please please address my first two point, and at least consider the
third. Not necessarily you, Christopher; open question to the proponents.
Mike
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:17 PM Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Before switching to GitHub issues, I would like somebody to do an
> > investigation into why Apache Spark isn't using them. They are heavy
> heavy
> > heavy users of PRs, but don't use issues and I'd like to see if they've
> > already done the leg-work on figuring this out.
> >
> > Not saying that we need to be like Spark in every way, but it's a
> community
> > that may have already gone down this path.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for a trial... because we shouldn't be afraid to experiment with our
> > > workflows. I also like working on GH, and want to see if it will result
> > in
> > > a valuable change or not for Accumulo, and if it is, I'd like to switch
> > to
> > > it at some point (I like the trial first, because I don't know if there
> > > will be unforeseen problems).
> > >
> > > Additionally, I think that:
> > > GH issue tracker could potentially lower the bar to reporting issues
> > > since many devs use GitHub already.
> > > It would allow integration/exposure via external initiatives, like
> > > Hacktoberfest by using GH labels.
> > > It could improve readability of commit logs by avoiding lengthy links
> > to
> > > JIRA issue numbers.
> > > No need to create an issue for the sole purpose of "checking the box"
> > to
> > > have an issue to mention in the log (since PRs are issues).
> > > It would improve linking between PRs and issues.
> > > Markdown in GH is much more friendly than JIRA's syntax.
> > > Reduced mailing list spam from redundant emails and integration with
> > > JIRA.
> > > JIRA is frequently offline for maintenance.
> > >
> > > Some potential downsides:
> > > Lack of multiple milestones for an issue (there are workarounds)
> > > Lack of batch issue changes
> > > Change in momentum could be confusing to contributors
> > >
> > > I think a trial period could help us understand whether the potential
> > > downsides are worse than the benefits, and whether or not we can
> develop
> > > workflows that mitigate against those downsides.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
> > > > GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial
> > > period,
> > > > the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep
> using
> > > > Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
While I think Spark's reasons might be interesting, I find it hard to
believe that any reason they might have would be so compelling as to
prevent us from even performing a trial. I think should still experiment
with GH issues, as a trial, regardless of what additional input we might
get from other-than-hands-on experience during that trial.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:17 PM Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote:
> Before switching to GitHub issues, I would like somebody to do an
> investigation into why Apache Spark isn't using them. They are heavy heavy
> heavy users of PRs, but don't use issues and I'd like to see if they've
> already done the leg-work on figuring this out.
>
> Not saying that we need to be like Spark in every way, but it's a community
> that may have already gone down this path.
>
> Mike
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > +1 for a trial... because we shouldn't be afraid to experiment with our
> > workflows. I also like working on GH, and want to see if it will result
> in
> > a valuable change or not for Accumulo, and if it is, I'd like to switch
> to
> > it at some point (I like the trial first, because I don't know if there
> > will be unforeseen problems).
> >
> > Additionally, I think that:
> > GH issue tracker could potentially lower the bar to reporting issues
> > since many devs use GitHub already.
> > It would allow integration/exposure via external initiatives, like
> > Hacktoberfest by using GH labels.
> > It could improve readability of commit logs by avoiding lengthy links
> to
> > JIRA issue numbers.
> > No need to create an issue for the sole purpose of "checking the box"
> to
> > have an issue to mention in the log (since PRs are issues).
> > It would improve linking between PRs and issues.
> > Markdown in GH is much more friendly than JIRA's syntax.
> > Reduced mailing list spam from redundant emails and integration with
> > JIRA.
> > JIRA is frequently offline for maintenance.
> >
> > Some potential downsides:
> > Lack of multiple milestones for an issue (there are workarounds)
> > Lack of batch issue changes
> > Change in momentum could be confusing to contributors
> >
> > I think a trial period could help us understand whether the potential
> > downsides are worse than the benefits, and whether or not we can develop
> > workflows that mitigate against those downsides.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
> > > GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial
> > period,
> > > the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using
> > > Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Mike Drob <md...@apache.org>.
Before switching to GitHub issues, I would like somebody to do an
investigation into why Apache Spark isn't using them. They are heavy heavy
heavy users of PRs, but don't use issues and I'd like to see if they've
already done the leg-work on figuring this out.
Not saying that we need to be like Spark in every way, but it's a community
that may have already gone down this path.
Mike
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 for a trial... because we shouldn't be afraid to experiment with our
> workflows. I also like working on GH, and want to see if it will result in
> a valuable change or not for Accumulo, and if it is, I'd like to switch to
> it at some point (I like the trial first, because I don't know if there
> will be unforeseen problems).
>
> Additionally, I think that:
> GH issue tracker could potentially lower the bar to reporting issues
> since many devs use GitHub already.
> It would allow integration/exposure via external initiatives, like
> Hacktoberfest by using GH labels.
> It could improve readability of commit logs by avoiding lengthy links to
> JIRA issue numbers.
> No need to create an issue for the sole purpose of "checking the box" to
> have an issue to mention in the log (since PRs are issues).
> It would improve linking between PRs and issues.
> Markdown in GH is much more friendly than JIRA's syntax.
> Reduced mailing list spam from redundant emails and integration with
> JIRA.
> JIRA is frequently offline for maintenance.
>
> Some potential downsides:
> Lack of multiple milestones for an issue (there are workarounds)
> Lack of batch issue changes
> Change in momentum could be confusing to contributors
>
> I think a trial period could help us understand whether the potential
> downsides are worse than the benefits, and whether or not we can develop
> workflows that mitigate against those downsides.
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
> > GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial
> period,
> > the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using
> > Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Mike Miller <mm...@apache.org>.
+1 for a trial
Simply having the issue tracker on a tab next to the Code and PRs is enough
for me to switch, regardless of any issue tracking tool features.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Nicholas G. Felts <ng...@praxiseng.com>
wrote:
> +1 for a trial
>
> I'm fairly new. I've been here for less than six months, and Accumulo is
> my only experience with open-source development. I'm for consolidating
> tools where possible. It's easier to receive feedback on pull requests via
> Github, so that's where I've engaged in discussions. For me, Jira has been
> a glorified tool for naming branches.
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Christopher [ctubbsii@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 1:12 PM
> To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
>
> +1 for a trial... because we shouldn't be afraid to experiment with our
> workflows. I also like working on GH, and want to see if it will result in
> a valuable change or not for Accumulo, and if it is, I'd like to switch to
> it at some point (I like the trial first, because I don't know if there
> will be unforeseen problems).
>
> Additionally, I think that:
> GH issue tracker could potentially lower the bar to reporting issues
> since many devs use GitHub already.
> It would allow integration/exposure via external initiatives, like
> Hacktoberfest by using GH labels.
> It could improve readability of commit logs by avoiding lengthy links to
> JIRA issue numbers.
> No need to create an issue for the sole purpose of "checking the box" to
> have an issue to mention in the log (since PRs are issues).
> It would improve linking between PRs and issues.
> Markdown in GH is much more friendly than JIRA's syntax.
> Reduced mailing list spam from redundant emails and integration with
> JIRA.
> JIRA is frequently offline for maintenance.
>
> Some potential downsides:
> Lack of multiple milestones for an issue (there are workarounds)
> Lack of batch issue changes
> Change in momentum could be confusing to contributors
>
> I think a trial period could help us understand whether the potential
> downsides are worse than the benefits, and whether or not we can develop
> workflows that mitigate against those downsides.
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
> > GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial
> period,
> > the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using
> > Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
> >
>
RE: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by "Nicholas G. Felts" <ng...@praxiseng.com>.
+1 for a trial
I'm fairly new. I've been here for less than six months, and Accumulo is my only experience with open-source development. I'm for consolidating tools where possible. It's easier to receive feedback on pull requests via Github, so that's where I've engaged in discussions. For me, Jira has been a glorified tool for naming branches.
________________________________________
From: Christopher [ctubbsii@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 1:12 PM
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
+1 for a trial... because we shouldn't be afraid to experiment with our
workflows. I also like working on GH, and want to see if it will result in
a valuable change or not for Accumulo, and if it is, I'd like to switch to
it at some point (I like the trial first, because I don't know if there
will be unforeseen problems).
Additionally, I think that:
GH issue tracker could potentially lower the bar to reporting issues
since many devs use GitHub already.
It would allow integration/exposure via external initiatives, like
Hacktoberfest by using GH labels.
It could improve readability of commit logs by avoiding lengthy links to
JIRA issue numbers.
No need to create an issue for the sole purpose of "checking the box" to
have an issue to mention in the log (since PRs are issues).
It would improve linking between PRs and issues.
Markdown in GH is much more friendly than JIRA's syntax.
Reduced mailing list spam from redundant emails and integration with JIRA.
JIRA is frequently offline for maintenance.
Some potential downsides:
Lack of multiple milestones for an issue (there are workarounds)
Lack of batch issue changes
Change in momentum could be confusing to contributors
I think a trial period could help us understand whether the potential
downsides are worse than the benefits, and whether or not we can develop
workflows that mitigate against those downsides.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
> I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
> GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial period,
> the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using
> Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
+1 for a trial... because we shouldn't be afraid to experiment with our
workflows. I also like working on GH, and want to see if it will result in
a valuable change or not for Accumulo, and if it is, I'd like to switch to
it at some point (I like the trial first, because I don't know if there
will be unforeseen problems).
Additionally, I think that:
GH issue tracker could potentially lower the bar to reporting issues
since many devs use GitHub already.
It would allow integration/exposure via external initiatives, like
Hacktoberfest by using GH labels.
It could improve readability of commit logs by avoiding lengthy links to
JIRA issue numbers.
No need to create an issue for the sole purpose of "checking the box" to
have an issue to mention in the log (since PRs are issues).
It would improve linking between PRs and issues.
Markdown in GH is much more friendly than JIRA's syntax.
Reduced mailing list spam from redundant emails and integration with JIRA.
JIRA is frequently offline for maintenance.
Some potential downsides:
Lack of multiple milestones for an issue (there are workarounds)
Lack of batch issue changes
Change in momentum could be confusing to contributors
I think a trial period could help us understand whether the potential
downsides are worse than the benefits, and whether or not we can develop
workflows that mitigate against those downsides.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
> I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
> GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial period,
> the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using
> Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
>