Is your concern significant enough to oppose the proposed action from Mike Walch?
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018, 19:56 Mike Drob <mad...@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 <mwa...@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 <bus...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Mike Walch <mwa...@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 > > > > > >
