You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@couchdb.apache.org by Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd> on 2015/06/03 20:57:34 UTC
[PROPOSAL] GitHub issues
Hi list,
I would like to propose that we additionally enable GitHub issues for
our GitHub repos and would like to send this email to Infra:
Hi infra team,
I got an question regarding contributions and I would like to find out
what is required and how we (CouchDB) can help.
We are trying a lot to make contributing to CouchDB easier to attract
more contributors and grow our community. We see a lot of benefits in
allowing contributors to use GitHub when working on CouchDB. We’re
already using the already extensive GitHub / ASF integration and it is
working very well for us.
I would like to know what is required to use "GitHub issues" for
CouchDB. Registering a separate new account is a hurdle not many
potential contributors (from code contributions to bug reports and
feedback) are willing to take and we are trying to make it as easy as
possible to contribute to CouchDB. Quite often even our fresh elected
committers don't have a Jira account and they create it after their
election, but they all have GitHub accounts.
We really want to make it as easy as possible for our potential
contributors and having GitHub issues enabled would help us a lot! We
could mirror the GitHub issues to Jira so we still have them all
recorded in our Jira.
We would like to find out what is required to make it happen. We would
also love to help you with that!
Best,
Robert
Re: [PROPOSAL] GitHub issues
Posted by Andy Wenk <an...@apache.org>.
yes - go for it Robert!!! +1
On 3 June 2015 at 21:01, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On 03 Jun 2015, at 20:57, Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd> wrote:
> >
> > Hi list,
> >
> > I would like to propose that we additionally enable GitHub issues for
> > our GitHub repos and would like to send this email to Infra:
>
> Oh, I like this! :)
>
> I’m +1, let’s try to make this happen!
>
> Best
> Jan
> --
>
> >
> >
> > Hi infra team,
> >
> > I got an question regarding contributions and I would like to find out
> > what is required and how we (CouchDB) can help.
> >
> > We are trying a lot to make contributing to CouchDB easier to attract
> > more contributors and grow our community. We see a lot of benefits in
> > allowing contributors to use GitHub when working on CouchDB. We’re
> > already using the already extensive GitHub / ASF integration and it is
> > working very well for us.
> >
> > I would like to know what is required to use "GitHub issues" for
> > CouchDB. Registering a separate new account is a hurdle not many
> > potential contributors (from code contributions to bug reports and
> > feedback) are willing to take and we are trying to make it as easy as
> > possible to contribute to CouchDB. Quite often even our fresh elected
> > committers don't have a Jira account and they create it after their
> > election, but they all have GitHub accounts.
> >
> > We really want to make it as easy as possible for our potential
> > contributors and having GitHub issues enabled would help us a lot! We
> > could mirror the GitHub issues to Jira so we still have them all
> > recorded in our Jira.
> >
> > We would like to find out what is required to make it happen. We would
> > also love to help you with that!
> >
> >
> > Best,
> > Robert
>
> --
> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>
>
--
Andy Wenk
Hamburg - Germany
RockIt!
GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
Re: [PROPOSAL] GitHub issues
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
> On 21 Jun 2015, at 22:32, Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd> wrote:
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> can you give me an status update?
There is no update, sorry! :)
Best
Jan
--
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03 Jun 2015, at 22:01, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On 03 Jun 2015, at 21:46, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The system of record needs to remain JIRA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Breaking in here again - this question makes it sound like you are
>>> arguing against the system of record being JIRA. See below...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because (ASF Member hat on) if GH goes away, the project would be
>>>>> crippled, severely so. Losing the institutional memory of what
>>>>> is going on is a serious problem.
>>>>
>>>> That’s why I suggested the option of a sync bridge like we do with
>>>> PRs
>>>> (which are just issues with a patch attached).
>>>
>>> If a new GH Issue is created, are you proposing an Infra bot
>>> creates/owns the issue in JIRA? If so then JIRA is still the system
>>> of record and I have little-to-no issue.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Because otherwise you need to migrate a couple thousand bugs
>>>>> out of JIRA, including all history, into GH, which is problematic
>>>>> and
>>>>> will certainly result in a loss of fidelity.
>>>>
>>>> Why? I didn’t suggest retiring JIRA.
>>>
>>> I thought you were. My mistake. If we are just considering GH Issues
>>> as a frontend to JIRA, and JIRA remains the system of record, similar
>>> to how GH is just a front end for getting things officially merged
>>> into our ASF git repo, I am fine.
>>>
>>>>> Do not conflate system performance with reason for existence and
>>>>> utility. Would you feel differently if performance was up to par?
>>>>
>>>> I find the UI overly complex, uninviting and downright confusing, no
>>>> matter the performance, but the fact that it takes 30-60 seconds for
>>>> every interaction makes me going to JIRA the rarest occasion. I can’t
>>>> imagine how this feels to the regular / drive contributor, because I
>>>> have the patience to sit through this.
>>>
>>> I regularly use a JIRA instance with zero performance issues and it's
>>> a joy to use, especially the task planning board where cards are
>>> dragged around. It's really not far off from the Trello user experience
>>> except there are more things that can be filled in.
>>>
>>>>> We should definitely take up this issue with Infra *separately* as
>>>>> the inability for us to do our work within the system clearly is
>>>>> having a material impact.
>>>>
>>>> +1.
>>>
>>> As you are the one having the most issues, can you start the discussion
>>> with Infra? ;)
>>
>> Will do, if Robert doesn’t beat me to it :)
>>
>> Thanks Joan, sorry for the crossed wires!
>>
>> Best
>> Jan
>> --
>>
--
Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
Re: [PROPOSAL] GitHub issues
Posted by Martin Lagrange <la...@gmail.com>.
+1 Would be great :)
>I find the UI overly complex, uninviting and downright confusing, no
>matter the performance, but the fact that it takes 30-60 seconds for
>every interaction makes me going to JIRA the rarest occasion. I can’t
>imagine how this feels to the regular / drive contributor, because I
>have the patience to sit through this.
Totally agree!
2015-06-21 22:32 GMT+02:00 Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd>:
> Hi Jan,
>
> can you give me an status update?
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 03 Jun 2015, at 22:01, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> On 03 Jun 2015, at 21:46, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> The system of record needs to remain JIRA.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why?
> >>
> >> Breaking in here again - this question makes it sound like you are
> >> arguing against the system of record being JIRA. See below...
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Because (ASF Member hat on) if GH goes away, the project would be
> >>>> crippled, severely so. Losing the institutional memory of what
> >>>> is going on is a serious problem.
> >>>
> >>> That’s why I suggested the option of a sync bridge like we do with
> >>> PRs
> >>> (which are just issues with a patch attached).
> >>
> >> If a new GH Issue is created, are you proposing an Infra bot
> >> creates/owns the issue in JIRA? If so then JIRA is still the system
> >> of record and I have little-to-no issue.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> Because otherwise you need to migrate a couple thousand bugs
> >>>> out of JIRA, including all history, into GH, which is problematic
> >>>> and
> >>>> will certainly result in a loss of fidelity.
> >>>
> >>> Why? I didn’t suggest retiring JIRA.
> >>
> >> I thought you were. My mistake. If we are just considering GH Issues
> >> as a frontend to JIRA, and JIRA remains the system of record, similar
> >> to how GH is just a front end for getting things officially merged
> >> into our ASF git repo, I am fine.
> >>
> >>>> Do not conflate system performance with reason for existence and
> >>>> utility. Would you feel differently if performance was up to par?
> >>>
> >>> I find the UI overly complex, uninviting and downright confusing, no
> >>> matter the performance, but the fact that it takes 30-60 seconds for
> >>> every interaction makes me going to JIRA the rarest occasion. I can’t
> >>> imagine how this feels to the regular / drive contributor, because I
> >>> have the patience to sit through this.
> >>
> >> I regularly use a JIRA instance with zero performance issues and it's
> >> a joy to use, especially the task planning board where cards are
> >> dragged around. It's really not far off from the Trello user experience
> >> except there are more things that can be filled in.
> >>
> >>>> We should definitely take up this issue with Infra *separately* as
> >>>> the inability for us to do our work within the system clearly is
> >>>> having a material impact.
> >>>
> >>> +1.
> >>
> >> As you are the one having the most issues, can you start the discussion
> >> with Infra? ;)
> >
> > Will do, if Robert doesn’t beat me to it :)
> >
> > Thanks Joan, sorry for the crossed wires!
> >
> > Best
> > Jan
> > --
> >
>
--
Martin LAGRANGE
Re: [PROPOSAL] GitHub issues
Posted by Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd>.
Hi Jan,
can you give me an status update?
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On 03 Jun 2015, at 22:01, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 03 Jun 2015, at 21:46, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The system of record needs to remain JIRA.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>
>> Breaking in here again - this question makes it sound like you are
>> arguing against the system of record being JIRA. See below...
>>
>>>>
>>>> Because (ASF Member hat on) if GH goes away, the project would be
>>>> crippled, severely so. Losing the institutional memory of what
>>>> is going on is a serious problem.
>>>
>>> That’s why I suggested the option of a sync bridge like we do with
>>> PRs
>>> (which are just issues with a patch attached).
>>
>> If a new GH Issue is created, are you proposing an Infra bot
>> creates/owns the issue in JIRA? If so then JIRA is still the system
>> of record and I have little-to-no issue.
>>
>>>
>>>> Because otherwise you need to migrate a couple thousand bugs
>>>> out of JIRA, including all history, into GH, which is problematic
>>>> and
>>>> will certainly result in a loss of fidelity.
>>>
>>> Why? I didn’t suggest retiring JIRA.
>>
>> I thought you were. My mistake. If we are just considering GH Issues
>> as a frontend to JIRA, and JIRA remains the system of record, similar
>> to how GH is just a front end for getting things officially merged
>> into our ASF git repo, I am fine.
>>
>>>> Do not conflate system performance with reason for existence and
>>>> utility. Would you feel differently if performance was up to par?
>>>
>>> I find the UI overly complex, uninviting and downright confusing, no
>>> matter the performance, but the fact that it takes 30-60 seconds for
>>> every interaction makes me going to JIRA the rarest occasion. I can’t
>>> imagine how this feels to the regular / drive contributor, because I
>>> have the patience to sit through this.
>>
>> I regularly use a JIRA instance with zero performance issues and it's
>> a joy to use, especially the task planning board where cards are
>> dragged around. It's really not far off from the Trello user experience
>> except there are more things that can be filled in.
>>
>>>> We should definitely take up this issue with Infra *separately* as
>>>> the inability for us to do our work within the system clearly is
>>>> having a material impact.
>>>
>>> +1.
>>
>> As you are the one having the most issues, can you start the discussion
>> with Infra? ;)
>
> Will do, if Robert doesn’t beat me to it :)
>
> Thanks Joan, sorry for the crossed wires!
>
> Best
> Jan
> --
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] GitHub issues
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
> On 03 Jun 2015, at 22:01, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>> On 03 Jun 2015, at 21:46, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The system of record needs to remain JIRA.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>
> Breaking in here again - this question makes it sound like you are
> arguing against the system of record being JIRA. See below...
>
>>>
>>> Because (ASF Member hat on) if GH goes away, the project would be
>>> crippled, severely so. Losing the institutional memory of what
>>> is going on is a serious problem.
>>
>> That’s why I suggested the option of a sync bridge like we do with
>> PRs
>> (which are just issues with a patch attached).
>
> If a new GH Issue is created, are you proposing an Infra bot
> creates/owns the issue in JIRA? If so then JIRA is still the system
> of record and I have little-to-no issue.
>
>>
>>> Because otherwise you need to migrate a couple thousand bugs
>>> out of JIRA, including all history, into GH, which is problematic
>>> and
>>> will certainly result in a loss of fidelity.
>>
>> Why? I didn’t suggest retiring JIRA.
>
> I thought you were. My mistake. If we are just considering GH Issues
> as a frontend to JIRA, and JIRA remains the system of record, similar
> to how GH is just a front end for getting things officially merged
> into our ASF git repo, I am fine.
>
>>> Do not conflate system performance with reason for existence and
>>> utility. Would you feel differently if performance was up to par?
>>
>> I find the UI overly complex, uninviting and downright confusing, no
>> matter the performance, but the fact that it takes 30-60 seconds for
>> every interaction makes me going to JIRA the rarest occasion. I can’t
>> imagine how this feels to the regular / drive contributor, because I
>> have the patience to sit through this.
>
> I regularly use a JIRA instance with zero performance issues and it's
> a joy to use, especially the task planning board where cards are
> dragged around. It's really not far off from the Trello user experience
> except there are more things that can be filled in.
>
>>> We should definitely take up this issue with Infra *separately* as
>>> the inability for us to do our work within the system clearly is
>>> having a material impact.
>>
>> +1.
>
> As you are the one having the most issues, can you start the discussion
> with Infra? ;)
Will do, if Robert doesn’t beat me to it :)
Thanks Joan, sorry for the crossed wires!
Best
Jan
--
Re: [PROPOSAL] GitHub issues
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
> > On 03 Jun 2015, at 21:46, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>> The system of record needs to remain JIRA.
> >>
> >> Why?
Breaking in here again - this question makes it sound like you are
arguing against the system of record being JIRA. See below...
> >
> > Because (ASF Member hat on) if GH goes away, the project would be
> > crippled, severely so. Losing the institutional memory of what
> > is going on is a serious problem.
>
> That’s why I suggested the option of a sync bridge like we do with
> PRs
> (which are just issues with a patch attached).
If a new GH Issue is created, are you proposing an Infra bot
creates/owns the issue in JIRA? If so then JIRA is still the system
of record and I have little-to-no issue.
>
> > Because otherwise you need to migrate a couple thousand bugs
> > out of JIRA, including all history, into GH, which is problematic
> > and
> > will certainly result in a loss of fidelity.
>
> Why? I didn’t suggest retiring JIRA.
I thought you were. My mistake. If we are just considering GH Issues
as a frontend to JIRA, and JIRA remains the system of record, similar
to how GH is just a front end for getting things officially merged
into our ASF git repo, I am fine.
> > Do not conflate system performance with reason for existence and
> > utility. Would you feel differently if performance was up to par?
>
> I find the UI overly complex, uninviting and downright confusing, no
> matter the performance, but the fact that it takes 30-60 seconds for
> every interaction makes me going to JIRA the rarest occasion. I can’t
> imagine how this feels to the regular / drive contributor, because I
> have the patience to sit through this.
I regularly use a JIRA instance with zero performance issues and it's
a joy to use, especially the task planning board where cards are
dragged around. It's really not far off from the Trello user experience
except there are more things that can be filled in.
> > We should definitely take up this issue with Infra *separately* as
> > the inability for us to do our work within the system clearly is
> > having a material impact.
>
> +1.
As you are the one having the most issues, can you start the discussion
with Infra? ;)
Re: [PROPOSAL] GitHub issues
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
> On 03 Jun 2015, at 21:46, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>> The system of record needs to remain JIRA.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because (ASF Member hat on) if GH goes away, the project would be
> crippled, severely so. Losing the institutional memory of what
> is going on is a serious problem.
That’s why I suggested the option of a sync bridge like we do with PRs
(which are just issues with a patch attached).
> Because otherwise you need to migrate a couple thousand bugs
> out of JIRA, including all history, into GH, which is problematic and
> will certainly result in a loss of fidelity.
Why? I didn’t suggest retiring JIRA.
> Because even the GH employees I'm friends with tell me that Issues
> is nowhere near feature rich enough even for their own work, and
> especially not when having to interface with other organizations
> (such as corporate sponsors/participants). I admit this is opinion
> and hearsay but it bears repeating since right now the argument seems
> to be "I like GH issues, let's use it instead,”
There are plenty of counter examples where GH just work fine.
>>> GH Issues is no replacement for JIRA; the fidelity of the system is
>>> vastly different.
>>
>> We barely use any JIRA features that GH issues doesn’t do :)
>
> I consider this a failing on our part.My illness has stood in the way
> of me being more involved in cleaning it up, but with proper tending
> it could be every bit as enjoyable as we'd all like it to be IMO.
>
>> Every JIRA page I try to load takes at least 1 minute (I’m not
>> exaggerating).
>
> Do not conflate system performance with reason for existence and
> utility. Would you feel differently if performance was up to par?
I find the UI overly complex, uninviting and downright confusing, no
matter the performance, but the fact that it takes 30-60 seconds for
every interaction makes me going to JIRA the rarest occasion. I can’t
imagine how this feels to the regular / drive contributor, because I
have the patience to sit through this.
> We should definitely take up this issue with Infra *separately* as
> the inability for us to do our work within the system clearly is
> having a material impact.
+1.
>> I could see a mirror system where GH issues create JIRA issues and
>> comments
>> are synced both ways, but I’d be fine without that and only have
>> GitHub
>> notifications go into notifications@c.a.o so we have all content in
>> ASF-land.
>
> Tracking comments on issues on a mailing list is no substitute for an
> ASF-hosted issue tracker. In fact, since you are discussing changing
> the system of record to GH Issues entirely, I am updating my feelings
> to -1, full stop.
I did not suggest that. I clearly spelled out a sync bridge like it
is in place with Pull Request as an option. I merely said that I’d
personally be even fine without that.
Best
Jan
--
>
> -Joan
>
>
--
Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
Re: [PROPOSAL] GitHub issues
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
> > The system of record needs to remain JIRA.
>
> Why?
Because (ASF Member hat on) if GH goes away, the project would be
crippled, severely so. Losing the institutional memory of what
is going on is a serious problem.
Because otherwise you need to migrate a couple thousand bugs
out of JIRA, including all history, into GH, which is problematic and
will certainly result in a loss of fidelity.
Because even the GH employees I'm friends with tell me that Issues
is nowhere near feature rich enough even for their own work, and
especially not when having to interface with other organizations
(such as corporate sponsors/participants). I admit this is opinion
and hearsay but it bears repeating since right now the argument seems
to be "I like GH issues, let's use it instead,"
> > GH Issues is no replacement for JIRA; the fidelity of the system is
> > vastly different.
>
> We barely use any JIRA features that GH issues doesn’t do :)
I consider this a failing on our part. My illness has stood in the way
of me being more involved in cleaning it up, but with proper tending
it could be every bit as enjoyable as we'd all like it to be IMO.
> Every JIRA page I try to load takes at least 1 minute (I’m not
> exaggerating).
Do not conflate system performance with reason for existence and
utility. Would you feel differently if performance was up to par?
We should definitely take up this issue with Infra *separately* as
the inability for us to do our work within the system clearly is
having a material impact.
> I could see a mirror system where GH issues create JIRA issues and
> comments
> are synced both ways, but I’d be fine without that and only have
> GitHub
> notifications go into notifications@c.a.o so we have all content in
> ASF-land.
Tracking comments on issues on a mailing list is no substitute for an
ASF-hosted issue tracker. In fact, since you are discussing changing
the system of record to GH Issues entirely, I am updating my feelings
to -1, full stop.
-Joan
Re: [PROPOSAL] GitHub issues
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
> On 03 Jun 2015, at 21:11, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Personally I'm -0.5 on this.
>
> The system of record needs to remain JIRA.
Why?
> GH Issues is no replacement for JIRA; the fidelity of the system is vastly different.
We barely use any JIRA features that GH issues doesn’t do :)
> We need more people cleaning up JIRA and making that environment
> make more sense, not to add clutter to the pile by enabling issues.
Every JIRA page I try to load takes at least 1 minute (I’m not exaggerating).
I try to not use it as much as possible. I can’t imagine anyone having an
interest in dealing with that. (Plus it was completely offline for a while today
https://twitter.com/janl/status/606085368274919425)
> Wouldn't it be more reasonable to have a GH PR result in a JIRA ticket
> created by an anonymous user that sent an email out, and allowed
> updating via replying to that email?
I could see a mirror system where GH issues create JIRA issues and comments
are synced both ways, but I’d be fine without that and only have GitHub
notifications go into notifications@c.a.o so we have all content in ASF-land.
Best
Jan
--
>
> -Joan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jan Lehnardt" <ja...@apache.org>
>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2015 3:01:47 PM
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] GitHub issues
>>
>>
>>> On 03 Jun 2015, at 20:57, Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi list,
>>>
>>> I would like to propose that we additionally enable GitHub issues
>>> for
>>> our GitHub repos and would like to send this email to Infra:
>>
>> Oh, I like this! :)
>>
>> I’m +1, let’s try to make this happen!
>>
>> Best
>> Jan
>> --
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi infra team,
>>>
>>> I got an question regarding contributions and I would like to find
>>> out
>>> what is required and how we (CouchDB) can help.
>>>
>>> We are trying a lot to make contributing to CouchDB easier to
>>> attract
>>> more contributors and grow our community. We see a lot of benefits
>>> in
>>> allowing contributors to use GitHub when working on CouchDB. We’re
>>> already using the already extensive GitHub / ASF integration and it
>>> is
>>> working very well for us.
>>>
>>> I would like to know what is required to use "GitHub issues" for
>>> CouchDB. Registering a separate new account is a hurdle not many
>>> potential contributors (from code contributions to bug reports and
>>> feedback) are willing to take and we are trying to make it as easy
>>> as
>>> possible to contribute to CouchDB. Quite often even our fresh
>>> elected
>>> committers don't have a Jira account and they create it after their
>>> election, but they all have GitHub accounts.
>>>
>>> We really want to make it as easy as possible for our potential
>>> contributors and having GitHub issues enabled would help us a lot!
>>> We
>>> could mirror the GitHub issues to Jira so we still have them all
>>> recorded in our Jira.
>>>
>>> We would like to find out what is required to make it happen. We
>>> would
>>> also love to help you with that!
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Robert
>>
>> --
>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>>
>>
--
Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
Re: [PROPOSAL] GitHub issues
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
Personally I'm -0.5 on this.
The system of record needs to remain JIRA. GH Issues is no replacement
for JIRA; the fidelity of the system is vastly different.
We need more people cleaning up JIRA and making that environment
make more sense, not to add clutter to the pile by enabling issues.
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to have a GH PR result in a JIRA ticket
created by an anonymous user that sent an email out, and allowed
updating via replying to that email?
-Joan
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jan Lehnardt" <ja...@apache.org>
> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2015 3:01:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] GitHub issues
>
>
> > On 03 Jun 2015, at 20:57, Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd> wrote:
> >
> > Hi list,
> >
> > I would like to propose that we additionally enable GitHub issues
> > for
> > our GitHub repos and would like to send this email to Infra:
>
> Oh, I like this! :)
>
> I’m +1, let’s try to make this happen!
>
> Best
> Jan
> --
>
> >
> >
> > Hi infra team,
> >
> > I got an question regarding contributions and I would like to find
> > out
> > what is required and how we (CouchDB) can help.
> >
> > We are trying a lot to make contributing to CouchDB easier to
> > attract
> > more contributors and grow our community. We see a lot of benefits
> > in
> > allowing contributors to use GitHub when working on CouchDB. We’re
> > already using the already extensive GitHub / ASF integration and it
> > is
> > working very well for us.
> >
> > I would like to know what is required to use "GitHub issues" for
> > CouchDB. Registering a separate new account is a hurdle not many
> > potential contributors (from code contributions to bug reports and
> > feedback) are willing to take and we are trying to make it as easy
> > as
> > possible to contribute to CouchDB. Quite often even our fresh
> > elected
> > committers don't have a Jira account and they create it after their
> > election, but they all have GitHub accounts.
> >
> > We really want to make it as easy as possible for our potential
> > contributors and having GitHub issues enabled would help us a lot!
> > We
> > could mirror the GitHub issues to Jira so we still have them all
> > recorded in our Jira.
> >
> > We would like to find out what is required to make it happen. We
> > would
> > also love to help you with that!
> >
> >
> > Best,
> > Robert
>
> --
> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] GitHub issues
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
> On 03 Jun 2015, at 20:57, Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd> wrote:
>
> Hi list,
>
> I would like to propose that we additionally enable GitHub issues for
> our GitHub repos and would like to send this email to Infra:
Oh, I like this! :)
I’m +1, let’s try to make this happen!
Best
Jan
--
>
>
> Hi infra team,
>
> I got an question regarding contributions and I would like to find out
> what is required and how we (CouchDB) can help.
>
> We are trying a lot to make contributing to CouchDB easier to attract
> more contributors and grow our community. We see a lot of benefits in
> allowing contributors to use GitHub when working on CouchDB. We’re
> already using the already extensive GitHub / ASF integration and it is
> working very well for us.
>
> I would like to know what is required to use "GitHub issues" for
> CouchDB. Registering a separate new account is a hurdle not many
> potential contributors (from code contributions to bug reports and
> feedback) are willing to take and we are trying to make it as easy as
> possible to contribute to CouchDB. Quite often even our fresh elected
> committers don't have a Jira account and they create it after their
> election, but they all have GitHub accounts.
>
> We really want to make it as easy as possible for our potential
> contributors and having GitHub issues enabled would help us a lot! We
> could mirror the GitHub issues to Jira so we still have them all
> recorded in our Jira.
>
> We would like to find out what is required to make it happen. We would
> also love to help you with that!
>
>
> Best,
> Robert
--
Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
Re: [PROPOSAL] GitHub issues
Posted by Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de>.
On 3 June 2015 at 21:08, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd> wrote:
> > I would like to propose that we additionally enable GitHub issues for
> > our GitHub repos and would like to send this email to Infra:
>
> I'm +1 for having GH issues instead of JIRA (we don't use full power
> of JIRA to be happy with it), but the words "additional enable" sounds
> like we'll have two sources of issues: on JIRA and GitHub. That's not
> cool unless one of these will be read-only for archives proposes.
>
> --
> ,,,^..^,,,
>
I understand Roberts email in the way, that we want to have GH issues and
these will flow somehow into Jira ... or?
--
Andy Wenk
Hamburg - Germany
RockIt!
http://www.couchdb-buch.de
http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de
GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
Re: [PROPOSAL] GitHub issues
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
> On 03 Jun 2015, at 21:08, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd> wrote:
>> I would like to propose that we additionally enable GitHub issues for
>> our GitHub repos and would like to send this email to Infra:
>
> I'm +1 for having GH issues instead of JIRA (we don't use full power
> of JIRA to be happy with it), but the words "additional enable" sounds
> like we'll have two sources of issues: on JIRA and GitHub. That's not
> cool unless one of these will be read-only for archives proposes.
I’m fine with both systems running in parallel.
Best
Jan
--
Re: [PROPOSAL] GitHub issues
Posted by Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd> wrote:
> I would like to propose that we additionally enable GitHub issues for
> our GitHub repos and would like to send this email to Infra:
I'm +1 for having GH issues instead of JIRA (we don't use full power
of JIRA to be happy with it), but the words "additional enable" sounds
like we'll have two sources of issues: on JIRA and GitHub. That's not
cool unless one of these will be read-only for archives proposes.
--
,,,^..^,,,