You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jena.apache.org by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> on 2022/02/17 18:28:51 UTC
GitHub features - enable issues? discussions?
We can enable github features; settings are controlled by the .asf.yaml
file on branch main in the repo.
Full documentation:
https://s.apache.org/asfyaml
Is there interest in opening up any features, initially on an
experimental basis?
My concern is that more communication channels, with same amount of
responding resources, is not necessarily better. I would be cautious
about adding features because even "experimental" is some level of
commitment.
That said, "issues" and "discussions" look interesting.
We can move items between "issues" and "discussions" if incoming is in
the wrong place. It will help keep issues cleaner.
== GH issues
We have JIRA and it is useful to because it gets used to record which
tickets get addressed in which release. It has a usage model where as
github issues allows you build usage.
The JIRA installation is a separate system and the user has to have
their own log-in. And the markup syntax is different.
Without creating inventing manual process around GH-labels for versions
etc. should we open up GH-issues? How do we retain a list of all thing
addressed by a release? (not a blocker).
Our releases are GH-tagged. https://github.com/apache/jena/tags
Linking within github:
https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/writing-on-github/working-with-advanced-formatting/autolinked-references-and-urls
https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue
== GH Discussions
From the /asfyaml link above:
"""
GitHub Discussions is currently a beta feature and does not have an API
endpoint. Until this is addressed, please open an Infra Jira ticket with
a link to a consensus discussion thread for your project.
"""
I found about 10 projects that have raised tickets and I looked at one
or two who do have discussions enabled.
I'd like to open the discussions up as a users@ resource - I hope they
will become a repository of knowledge.
It is NOT a place for project decisions.
We ought to have a VOTE on this to show consensus or not, including as
much community input as possible.
Andy
Re: Github issues changes
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
Done.
Github issues and github discussions are now live.
On 09/03/2022 20:44, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> INFRA request
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22974
Re: Github issues changes
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
INFRA request
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22974
Re: Github issues changes
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
Not quite so simple to separate "issues" and "discussions" ...
One feature of GH is that you can transfer an issue into a discussion
and create issues from discussions.
We have had a few question-by-JIRA this year. That's not that helpful
because it isn't a place that others will search.
We do often get users@ email that report issues.
So add "enable discussion", which will need a lazy-consesnus vote --
INFRA ask for this because there isn't a stable API to it yet so it
isn't archived on non-github hardware.
Andy
On 05/03/2022 22:15, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Let's start with opening up "issues" on github:
>
> Concretely:
>
> GH issues -> issues@jena (new list)
> GH pull requests -> pr@jena (current setup)
> JIRA -> jira@ (new list)
>
> then change .asf.yaml
>
> dev@ becomes quieter and, hopefully, will give some space for project
> discussions. The volume of JIRA on dev@ is possibly a bit off-putting.
>
> Add this to .asf.yaml:
>
> github:
> features:
> # Enable issue management
> issues: true
>
> dependabot emails : I don't see anything in the documentation specific
> to dependabot. It opens pull requests. There is a security dependabot
> where alerts go to the github repo, and github account notifications and
> also show up when you git push or do a PR (and are a member of the PMC).
> No email but anyone active will see them quite quickly.
>
> Andy
>
> On 19/02/2022 01:02, Bruno Kinoshita wrote:
>> We had a similar discussion in the commons list, about issues/commits
>> from
>> GH, GH actions emails, fuzzifier emails, and the last one I think was
>> about
>> dependabot emails? I don't have a strong preference as if the email
>> traffic
>> is too much for me I just create an email filter using a combination of
>> sender/subject/etc to delete or archive unwanted emails :-) so I'd say
>> whatever you think would disturb your work less (as you are probably the
>> most affected by more Jena emails I reckon).
>>
>> -Bruno
Github issues changes
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
Let's start with opening up "issues" on github:
Concretely:
GH issues -> issues@jena (new list)
GH pull requests -> pr@jena (current setup)
JIRA -> jira@ (new list)
then change .asf.yaml
dev@ becomes quieter and, hopefully, will give some space for project
discussions. The volume of JIRA on dev@ is possibly a bit off-putting.
Add this to .asf.yaml:
github:
features:
# Enable issue management
issues: true
dependabot emails : I don't see anything in the documentation specific
to dependabot. It opens pull requests. There is a security dependabot
where alerts go to the github repo, and github account notifications and
also show up when you git push or do a PR (and are a member of the PMC).
No email but anyone active will see them quite quickly.
Andy
On 19/02/2022 01:02, Bruno Kinoshita wrote:
> We had a similar discussion in the commons list, about issues/commits from
> GH, GH actions emails, fuzzifier emails, and the last one I think was about
> dependabot emails? I don't have a strong preference as if the email traffic
> is too much for me I just create an email filter using a combination of
> sender/subject/etc to delete or archive unwanted emails :-) so I'd say
> whatever you think would disturb your work less (as you are probably the
> most affected by more Jena emails I reckon).
>
> -Bruno
Re: GitHub features - enable issues? discussions?
Posted by Bruno Kinoshita <br...@gmail.com>.
We had a similar discussion in the commons list, about issues/commits from
GH, GH actions emails, fuzzifier emails, and the last one I think was about
dependabot emails? I don't have a strong preference as if the email traffic
is too much for me I just create an email filter using a combination of
sender/subject/etc to delete or archive unwanted emails :-) so I'd say
whatever you think would disturb your work less (as you are probably the
most affected by more Jena emails I reckon).
-Bruno
On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 at 04:13, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> IF we are making changes ... what's the preferred email routing?
>
> GH issues -> issues@jena (new list)
> GH pull requests -> pr@jena
> GH discussions -> not practical today?
> No stable GH API - not INFRA provided
>
> Or one "github@" list?
>
> JIRA:
> Today - goes to dev@jena
> We may have a jira@ list - if so, it's not active.
> Options:
> leave as-is
> route to issues@jena, same a GH issues
> route to a separate jira@jena
>
> I mildly prefer to split the lists out and allow people to file to same
> or different folders as the choose.
> (I use GH notifications across all my watched repos)
>
> As most of the traffic on dev@ is JIRA related, I wouldn't mind routing
> it to jira@ - it allows people to have all in one place or to split it.
>
> A dev@ for project discussions and VOTEs will make dev@ significantly
> quieter and maybe encourage discussions as they are a little easier to
> see and track. (And have to be explain in the board report!)
>
> Andy
>
> On 17/02/2022 20:08, Bruno Kinoshita wrote:
> > I think this would be a good experiment, but definitely not the place for
> > project decisions to be recorded (if a discussion there generates some
> > decision, then we'd still have to move it & document in the mailing list
> I
> > think).
>
> We can also ourselves treat GH-issues as a more convenient route for
> external issue raising, many of which are specific problems, and keep
> JIRA for significant fixes and change of functionality.
>
> Also - we do have an upturn in JIRA that are questions. Once, that never
> happened; now it is happening. Not many but some.
>
> > But that might increase the user interaction and contribution. Will wait
> > for the vote thread :-)
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bruno
> >
> > On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 at 07:28, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...
> >> == GH issues
> ...>> == GH Discussions
>
Re: GitHub features - enable issues? discussions?
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
IF we are making changes ... what's the preferred email routing?
GH issues -> issues@jena (new list)
GH pull requests -> pr@jena
GH discussions -> not practical today?
No stable GH API - not INFRA provided
Or one "github@" list?
JIRA:
Today - goes to dev@jena
We may have a jira@ list - if so, it's not active.
Options:
leave as-is
route to issues@jena, same a GH issues
route to a separate jira@jena
I mildly prefer to split the lists out and allow people to file to same
or different folders as the choose.
(I use GH notifications across all my watched repos)
As most of the traffic on dev@ is JIRA related, I wouldn't mind routing
it to jira@ - it allows people to have all in one place or to split it.
A dev@ for project discussions and VOTEs will make dev@ significantly
quieter and maybe encourage discussions as they are a little easier to
see and track. (And have to be explain in the board report!)
Andy
On 17/02/2022 20:08, Bruno Kinoshita wrote:
> I think this would be a good experiment, but definitely not the place for
> project decisions to be recorded (if a discussion there generates some
> decision, then we'd still have to move it & document in the mailing list I
> think).
We can also ourselves treat GH-issues as a more convenient route for
external issue raising, many of which are specific problems, and keep
JIRA for significant fixes and change of functionality.
Also - we do have an upturn in JIRA that are questions. Once, that never
happened; now it is happening. Not many but some.
> But that might increase the user interaction and contribution. Will wait
> for the vote thread :-)
>
> Thanks
> Bruno
>
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 at 07:28, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
...
>> == GH issues
...>> == GH Discussions
Re: GitHub features - enable issues? discussions?
Posted by Bruno Kinoshita <br...@gmail.com>.
I think this would be a good experiment, but definitely not the place for
project decisions to be recorded (if a discussion there generates some
decision, then we'd still have to move it & document in the mailing list I
think).
But that might increase the user interaction and contribution. Will wait
for the vote thread :-)
Thanks
Bruno
On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 at 07:28, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> We can enable github features; settings are controlled by the .asf.yaml
> file on branch main in the repo.
>
> Full documentation:
> https://s.apache.org/asfyaml
>
> Is there interest in opening up any features, initially on an
> experimental basis?
>
> My concern is that more communication channels, with same amount of
> responding resources, is not necessarily better. I would be cautious
> about adding features because even "experimental" is some level of
> commitment.
>
> That said, "issues" and "discussions" look interesting.
>
> We can move items between "issues" and "discussions" if incoming is in
> the wrong place. It will help keep issues cleaner.
>
> == GH issues
>
> We have JIRA and it is useful to because it gets used to record which
> tickets get addressed in which release. It has a usage model where as
> github issues allows you build usage.
>
> The JIRA installation is a separate system and the user has to have
> their own log-in. And the markup syntax is different.
>
> Without creating inventing manual process around GH-labels for versions
> etc. should we open up GH-issues? How do we retain a list of all thing
> addressed by a release? (not a blocker).
>
> Our releases are GH-tagged. https://github.com/apache/jena/tags
>
> Linking within github:
>
>
> https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/writing-on-github/working-with-advanced-formatting/autolinked-references-and-urls
>
>
> https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue
>
> == GH Discussions
>
> From the /asfyaml link above:
> """
> GitHub Discussions is currently a beta feature and does not have an API
> endpoint. Until this is addressed, please open an Infra Jira ticket with
> a link to a consensus discussion thread for your project.
> """
>
> I found about 10 projects that have raised tickets and I looked at one
> or two who do have discussions enabled.
>
> I'd like to open the discussions up as a users@ resource - I hope they
> will become a repository of knowledge.
>
> It is NOT a place for project decisions.
>
> We ought to have a VOTE on this to show consensus or not, including as
> much community input as possible.
>
> Andy
>