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 <ctubb...@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 <ctubb...@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 <mwa...@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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
