On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the top-post.
>
> I really appreciate the numbered list below, Keith. Specifically the answers
> to #1 and #4 make me very happy.
>
> I think #5 needs some a little more concrete (IMO, you should just decide
> what it should be).

My wording "proposal suggest" was misleading and redundant.  The
entire proposal is a suggestion.  However in the proposal I think it
is very concrete about using labels for versions.  Please let me know
if there is a place where the proposal is not concrete about this.

>
> #6 +1 to a message to private, this is how Apache general requests this be
> done).
>
> While I can appreciate your stance on #3 and I think I would not call it a
> blocker either, this is probably something worth the 15-30 minutes of
> investigation. Sean/Mike may feel more strongly than I do. Learning from
> others, even if it just dropping an email to dev@spark directly to ask the
> question goes a long way..
>
>
> On 3/7/18 10:55 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> -0 as an initial reaction because I'm still not convinced that GH issues
>>>> provides any additional features or better experience than JIRA does,
>>>> and
>>>> this change would only serve to fragment an already bare community.
>>>>
>>>> My concerns that would push that -0 to a -1 include (but aren't limited
>>>> to):
>>>>
>>>> * Documentation/website update for the release process
>>>> * Validation that our release processes on JIRA has similar
>>>> functionality on
>>>> GH issues
>>>> * Updated contributor docs (removing JIRA related content, add an
>>>> explanation as to the change)
>>>> * CONTRIBUTING.md updated on relevant repos
>>>
>>>
>>> I opened the following PR with a proposal for how we could start using
>>> github.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website/pull/59
>>
>>
>> There were lots of valid concerns raised during this discussion.  The
>> concerns shaped the proposal I submitted. Rather than reply to them
>> individually in different emails I am collecting them all here and
>> sharing my thoughts about them.
>>
>>
>> 1. How do we release?
>>
>>    JIRA is used in three important ways for releases : setting blockers,
>>    triaging issues, and generating release notes.  I think the proposal
>>    addresses all three.
>>
>> 2. Will we document contributor guidelines to avoid confusion?
>>
>>    What is expected of contributors is clearly documented.
>>
>> 3. Can someone investigate how Spark operates before switching?
>>
>>    That would be great if someone volunteered to do this and wrote up
>> their
>>    findings.  However if no one volunteers, then I do not think this
>> should
>>    be a blocker.  There are many other projects that would be worthy of
>>    investigation also.
>>
>> 4. What is the migration plan for existing issues?  Will we have split
>> issue
>>     tracker for years?
>>
>>    The proposal documents migrating existing JIRA issues as they are
>> worked.
>>    This means that existing JIRA issues that are never worked will never
>>    migrate. After all branches are released, JIRA can be put in read only
>> mode
>>    (only PMC can change it).  It will be left active for reference and
>>    migration of existing issues.
>>
>> 5. How will we handle fix versions?
>>
>>     The proposal suggest using issue labels in github for this.  Also
>> suggest
>>     using a prefix on fix version labels to make them sort last.
>>
>> 6. How will we handle security issues?
>>
>>     We need to clearly document on our website how users should report
>>     security issues.  I am not sure this is done at the moment.  Since
>> this
>>     is infrequent I think we can handle this on the private list.  I think
>>     our workflow should be optimized for frequent actions and not
>> infrequent
>>     ones.
>>
>> 7. Should we switch all repos to GH issues except Accumulo core?
>>
>>     I think this a good example of how design by committee can go
>>     wrong.  This is a really confusing solution that does not
>>     improve our workflow, so the benefits are not clear to me.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Josh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/15/18 12:05 PM, Mike Walch 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>

Reply via email to