You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@arrow.apache.org by Joris Van den Bossche <jo...@gmail.com> on 2022/11/30 15:04:10 UTC
Current state of using GitHub issues for Arrow
Hi all,
There is a separate vote thread about already using GitHub issues for all
new issues (and in practice users also are already doing that, since new
JIRA signup has been disabled). And so to prepare for this, there has been
some ongoing work to update our workflows to handle GitHub issues (both
issues and PRs closing such issues).
An overview of the current state of using GitHub issues:
- The current "lang: xx" labels have been renamed to "Component: xx" (to
match the components on JIRA to ease the migration of JIRA issues to
github). The github workflow to automatically add those labels to PRs
(based on which files they touch) has been updated to use those labels. We
can still reconsider the exact naming scheme later (after the migration).
- People can *open GitHub* *issues* for reports. In the form (
https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/new/choose), you can currently
choose between bug or feature request, and this choice will automatically
add a label to the resulting issue ("Type: bug", "Type: enhancement").
- Within the form, you can also choose a component (matching the
components from JIRA). However, note that this does NOT yet automatically
add a label (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-18377 tracks
this). So for committers that open or triage issues, please add the
matching component labels manually, for now (until this is automated).
- People currently can't assign an issue to themselves, as one can do
on JIRA (unless you are a committer). That's a limitation of GitHub, and
the idea is to workaround that with some comment workflow:
https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/14784
- People can *open* *PRs* that reference a GitHub issue. Instead of
starting the title with "ARROW-XXX: ", you use "GH-XXX: ".
- The bot checking the title has been updated to handle this
correctly, and will in addition also assign the linked issue to the user
opening the PR, and will post a message in case the issue has no
component.
- The merge script has been updated to be able to merge such PRs
(once https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/14750 is merged). This
will then close the linked github issue, and will also set the milestone
(if not yet set).
- For now we still require that a PR references a GH or JIRA issue
(except for MINOR PRs), as was required when we only used JIRAs
for issues.
This is something we could discuss in the future in a separate
thread if we
want to relax this and allow direct PRs (which then will also require
further updates to the workflows / merge script).
This is not yet documented in our contributing guidelines. But this thread
is a start to at least ensure the community is up to date with those
changes.
For sure the exact workflows will still be further refined while starting
to use this. And if there are things missing or unclear in the current
practices around how to handle GitHub issues or any other feedback or
ideas, this thread is yours!
Best,
Joris
Re: Current state of using GitHub issues for Arrow
Posted by Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org>.
We should define a unified syntax for all comment-based actions, because
right now it's a hodgepodge of mixed conventions.
Le 02/12/2022 à 13:52, Jacob Wujciak a écrit :
> Hello Everyone,
>
> A quick update, anyone (regardless of committer status) can now self-assign
> issues by commenting "take" on the issue.
> The PR with examples: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/14785
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 4:04 PM Joris Van den Bossche <
> jorisvandenbossche@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> There is a separate vote thread about already using GitHub issues for all
>> new issues (and in practice users also are already doing that, since new
>> JIRA signup has been disabled). And so to prepare for this, there has been
>> some ongoing work to update our workflows to handle GitHub issues (both
>> issues and PRs closing such issues).
>>
>> An overview of the current state of using GitHub issues:
>>
>> - The current "lang: xx" labels have been renamed to "Component: xx" (to
>> match the components on JIRA to ease the migration of JIRA issues to
>> github). The github workflow to automatically add those labels to PRs
>> (based on which files they touch) has been updated to use those labels.
>> We
>> can still reconsider the exact naming scheme later (after the
>> migration).
>> - People can *open GitHub* *issues* for reports. In the form (
>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/new/choose), you can currently
>> choose between bug or feature request, and this choice will
>> automatically
>> add a label to the resulting issue ("Type: bug", "Type: enhancement").
>> - Within the form, you can also choose a component (matching the
>> components from JIRA). However, note that this does NOT yet
>> automatically
>> add a label (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-18377
>> tracks
>> this). So for committers that open or triage issues, please add the
>> matching component labels manually, for now (until this is
>> automated).
>> - People currently can't assign an issue to themselves, as one can do
>> on JIRA (unless you are a committer). That's a limitation of GitHub,
>> and
>> the idea is to workaround that with some comment workflow:
>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/14784
>>
>> - People can *open* *PRs* that reference a GitHub issue. Instead of
>> starting the title with "ARROW-XXX: ", you use "GH-XXX: ".
>> - The bot checking the title has been updated to handle this
>> correctly, and will in addition also assign the linked issue to the
>> user
>> opening the PR, and will post a message in case the issue has no
>> component.
>> - The merge script has been updated to be able to merge such PRs
>> (once https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/14750 is merged). This
>> will then close the linked github issue, and will also set the
>> milestone
>> (if not yet set).
>> - For now we still require that a PR references a GH or JIRA issue
>> (except for MINOR PRs), as was required when we only used JIRAs
>> for issues.
>> This is something we could discuss in the future in a separate
>> thread if we
>> want to relax this and allow direct PRs (which then will also require
>> further updates to the workflows / merge script).
>>
>> This is not yet documented in our contributing guidelines. But this thread
>> is a start to at least ensure the community is up to date with those
>> changes.
>>
>> For sure the exact workflows will still be further refined while starting
>> to use this. And if there are things missing or unclear in the current
>> practices around how to handle GitHub issues or any other feedback or
>> ideas, this thread is yours!
>>
>> Best,
>> Joris
>>
>
Re: Current state of using GitHub issues for Arrow
Posted by Jacob Wujciak <ja...@voltrondata.com.INVALID>.
Hello Everyone,
A quick update, anyone (regardless of committer status) can now self-assign
issues by commenting "take" on the issue.
The PR with examples: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/14785
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 4:04 PM Joris Van den Bossche <
jorisvandenbossche@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There is a separate vote thread about already using GitHub issues for all
> new issues (and in practice users also are already doing that, since new
> JIRA signup has been disabled). And so to prepare for this, there has been
> some ongoing work to update our workflows to handle GitHub issues (both
> issues and PRs closing such issues).
>
> An overview of the current state of using GitHub issues:
>
> - The current "lang: xx" labels have been renamed to "Component: xx" (to
> match the components on JIRA to ease the migration of JIRA issues to
> github). The github workflow to automatically add those labels to PRs
> (based on which files they touch) has been updated to use those labels.
> We
> can still reconsider the exact naming scheme later (after the
> migration).
> - People can *open GitHub* *issues* for reports. In the form (
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/new/choose), you can currently
> choose between bug or feature request, and this choice will
> automatically
> add a label to the resulting issue ("Type: bug", "Type: enhancement").
> - Within the form, you can also choose a component (matching the
> components from JIRA). However, note that this does NOT yet
> automatically
> add a label (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-18377
> tracks
> this). So for committers that open or triage issues, please add the
> matching component labels manually, for now (until this is
> automated).
> - People currently can't assign an issue to themselves, as one can do
> on JIRA (unless you are a committer). That's a limitation of GitHub,
> and
> the idea is to workaround that with some comment workflow:
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/14784
>
> - People can *open* *PRs* that reference a GitHub issue. Instead of
> starting the title with "ARROW-XXX: ", you use "GH-XXX: ".
> - The bot checking the title has been updated to handle this
> correctly, and will in addition also assign the linked issue to the
> user
> opening the PR, and will post a message in case the issue has no
> component.
> - The merge script has been updated to be able to merge such PRs
> (once https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/14750 is merged). This
> will then close the linked github issue, and will also set the
> milestone
> (if not yet set).
> - For now we still require that a PR references a GH or JIRA issue
> (except for MINOR PRs), as was required when we only used JIRAs
> for issues.
> This is something we could discuss in the future in a separate
> thread if we
> want to relax this and allow direct PRs (which then will also require
> further updates to the workflows / merge script).
>
> This is not yet documented in our contributing guidelines. But this thread
> is a start to at least ensure the community is up to date with those
> changes.
>
> For sure the exact workflows will still be further refined while starting
> to use this. And if there are things missing or unclear in the current
> practices around how to handle GitHub issues or any other feedback or
> ideas, this thread is yours!
>
> Best,
> Joris
>
Re: Current state of using GitHub issues for Arrow
Posted by Benson Muite <be...@emailplus.org>.
Maybe a bit late, but maybe a repository could be create just for issues.
Code repositories would just have discussion on pull requests.
This might also make managing and filtering subscriptions easier.
On 12/8/22 14:36, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> I'm not sure it makes sense to file website issues to a different repo
> than documentation issues.
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
>
>
> Le 08/12/2022 à 11:50, Joris Van den Bossche a écrit :
>> On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 at 08:41, Benson Muite <be...@emailplus.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> For sure the exact workflows will still be further refined while
>>>> starting
>>>> to use this. And if there are things missing or unclear in the current
>>>> practices around how to handle GitHub issues or any other feedback or
>>>> ideas, this thread is yours!
>>> Maybe helpful to also update website bot:
>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow-site
>>>
>>
>> Related to the arrow-site repo: up to now we were also using the Arrow
>> JIRA to track website issues. Now we move to GitHub issues, it
>> probably makes more sense to use the issues on the arrow-site repo
>> itself. So we just enabled that issues can be opened there:
>> https://github.com/apache/arrow-site/issues
>>
>> We will still have to update the merge script in the arrow-site repo
>> as well (or discuss about using the merge button).
>>
>> Joris
Re: Current state of using GitHub issues for Arrow
Posted by Jacob Wujciak <ja...@voltrondata.com.INVALID>.
I think it makes sense to file issues where they are relevant. Issues that
are concerned with changes to parts of the website that live in
apache/arrow-site (the markdown content, jekyll templates and deploy
workflows) should be filled as GH issues in apache/arrow-site. And issues
concerning the documentation parts that live in apache/arrow should be
filled there.
This would be idiomatic for GH issues imo and we avoid having issues in one
repository that will be closed by a PR in another repository needlessly
complicating the process for committers and (potential) contributors.
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 12:36 PM Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure it makes sense to file website issues to a different repo
> than documentation issues.
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
>
>
> Le 08/12/2022 à 11:50, Joris Van den Bossche a écrit :
> > On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 at 08:41, Benson Muite <be...@emailplus.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> For sure the exact workflows will still be further refined while
> starting
> >>> to use this. And if there are things missing or unclear in the current
> >>> practices around how to handle GitHub issues or any other feedback or
> >>> ideas, this thread is yours!
> >> Maybe helpful to also update website bot:
> >> https://github.com/apache/arrow-site
> >>
> >
> > Related to the arrow-site repo: up to now we were also using the Arrow
> > JIRA to track website issues. Now we move to GitHub issues, it
> > probably makes more sense to use the issues on the arrow-site repo
> > itself. So we just enabled that issues can be opened there:
> > https://github.com/apache/arrow-site/issues
> >
> > We will still have to update the merge script in the arrow-site repo
> > as well (or discuss about using the merge button).
> >
> > Joris
>
Re: Current state of using GitHub issues for Arrow
Posted by Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org>.
I'm not sure it makes sense to file website issues to a different repo
than documentation issues.
Regards
Antoine.
Le 08/12/2022 à 11:50, Joris Van den Bossche a écrit :
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 at 08:41, Benson Muite <be...@emailplus.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> For sure the exact workflows will still be further refined while starting
>>> to use this. And if there are things missing or unclear in the current
>>> practices around how to handle GitHub issues or any other feedback or
>>> ideas, this thread is yours!
>> Maybe helpful to also update website bot:
>> https://github.com/apache/arrow-site
>>
>
> Related to the arrow-site repo: up to now we were also using the Arrow
> JIRA to track website issues. Now we move to GitHub issues, it
> probably makes more sense to use the issues on the arrow-site repo
> itself. So we just enabled that issues can be opened there:
> https://github.com/apache/arrow-site/issues
>
> We will still have to update the merge script in the arrow-site repo
> as well (or discuss about using the merge button).
>
> Joris
Re: Current state of using GitHub issues for Arrow
Posted by Joris Van den Bossche <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 at 08:41, Benson Muite <be...@emailplus.org> wrote:
>
>
> > For sure the exact workflows will still be further refined while starting
> > to use this. And if there are things missing or unclear in the current
> > practices around how to handle GitHub issues or any other feedback or
> > ideas, this thread is yours!
> Maybe helpful to also update website bot:
> https://github.com/apache/arrow-site
>
Related to the arrow-site repo: up to now we were also using the Arrow
JIRA to track website issues. Now we move to GitHub issues, it
probably makes more sense to use the issues on the arrow-site repo
itself. So we just enabled that issues can be opened there:
https://github.com/apache/arrow-site/issues
We will still have to update the merge script in the arrow-site repo
as well (or discuss about using the merge button).
Joris
Re: Current state of using GitHub issues for Arrow
Posted by Benson Muite <be...@emailplus.org>.
> For sure the exact workflows will still be further refined while starting
> to use this. And if there are things missing or unclear in the current
> practices around how to handle GitHub issues or any other feedback or
> ideas, this thread is yours!
Maybe helpful to also update website bot:
https://github.com/apache/arrow-site