I've thought about this some more and I think we should probably be consistent with all projects.
Justin has made a good point about there being 21 projects/repos. I think the switch would be fine to GH issues, but if we did it I think we should be consistent and have all projects managed the same way. It would be fine to start with one project and move the others but I don't think it's a great idea if we only have 1 project isolated with GH issues and the other 20 projects in Jira. So I think we would need the PMC to agree to move all the projects to GH for issue tracking and I don't think that support will be there to do that. On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 10:04 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Yes, my point was we have the same features as base. > > For me, the key differences are: > 1. User management, authentication, and span handling > 2. Better integration with PR and Actions/Workflows > 3. Release/version handling is probably better on Jira, but GH Issues > milestone support is sufficient for us > > Just my $0.01 > > Regards > JB > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 3:27 PM Francois Papon > <francois.pa...@openobject.fr> wrote: > > > > About the features Github also have projects, roadmap, kanban.... > > > > I cannot see which features are missing for the common ASF projects. > > > > On 18/10/2023 11:40, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > > The opposite is also true: why not move as we have the same features > > > 🙂 That's true Jira has much more features than GH issues, but we are > > > not using it. If we would use Kanban, custom fields, etc, I would > > > agree, but it's not the case currently. >
