I haven’t used it on the Apache Jira but I use private comments all the
time on my company JIRA for things that would be related to security and
injeritently private.
I thought we could eventually start using a feature like that and I thought
it would be a nice feature to keep. But if everybody think we should keep
everything open and just use private list for private comments that’s fine.
On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 2:47 PM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Clebert-
>
> How widely used are private comments today?
>
> I ran a search and I do not see any private comments in use with the
> ActiveMQ project. I tried searching the ARTEMIS project, perhaps I got the
> JQL incorrect?
>
> project = ARTEMIS AND issueFunction in commented("group activemq-pmc”)
> project = ARTEMIS AND issueFunction in commented(“role PMC")
>
> An available solution would be to use a private GH repo would secure all
> the items — code, issues, etc.. from unprivileged users. A PMC-only repo
> could have issues-only or discussion-only for CVE discussions.
>
> I think private comment is a wonky concept, as it is easy to get that
> toggled incorrectly. I think it is better to restrict access to a secured
> area vs trying to feather comments.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
> > On Apr 5, 2024, at 11:47 AM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Is there a private comment capability on GitHub? To me that’s a breaking
> > deal feature and I have never seen it.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 12:15 PM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
> > bruscin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't have a strong opinion on migrating from Jira to GitHub Issues.
> >> I would prefer GitHub Issues only for its better integration and because
> >> new users that reach from the GitHub repository could be confused to not
> >> find the `Issues` tabs (most of the GitHub projects use it).
> >>
> >> Also GitHub Issues has a good REST interface, I'm using it in
> >> GithubIssueManager[1].
> >>
> >> @Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> thanks the detailed doc!!!
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> >>
> https://github.com/brusdev/downstream-updater/blob/main/src/main/java/dev/brus/downstream/updater/issue/GithubIssueManager.java
> >>
> >> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 at 17:41, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I would prefer to keep JIRA for their REST interface.
> >>>
> >>> Also: one thing to notice is the possibility of using private comments
> >>> in JIRA. Say you ever have a security issue. I think you can have PMC
> >>> private comments on JIRAs. I'm not sure you have the same in github
> >>> issues.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I didn't see a note about private comments on Justin's detailed doc
> >>> (nice Doc BTW), but the private comments may be handy on handling
> >>> sensitive issues.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 5:19 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The 'track version as Project' thing is interesting, though kinda
> >>>> further underscores the limitations of Milestones which are really the
> >>>> main surfaced way of handling versions.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll bet some folks on the 'users' side of things looking at released
> >>>> issues later would even miss that you are doing that (I would), since
> >>>> Projects are kinda separate and get even further hidden away upon
> >>>> completion; closed Projects are hidden/collapsed in the Issue/PR view
> >>>> on expectations they are no longer 'interesting', requiring you to
> >>>> spot that and expand the closed-projects view on each Issue/PR to see
> >>>> the Project later. Which to be fair I think is actually decent
> >>>> behaviour in general for their main use cases, since they aren't
> >>>> really aimed to be used as versions but more for using the 'swimlane'
> >>>> etc views given for managing/planning overall outstanding tasks to a
> >>>> point of completion and will then most typically be
> >>>> forgotten/less-interesting detail.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 at 22:52, Christopher Shannon
> >>>> <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am also on the Accumulo PMC and on that project we use Github
> >> issues
> >>>>> and no longer use Jira. This switch was made before my time so I'm
> >> not
> >>>>> sure of the reasoning. Personally, I don't really care too much
> >> either
> >>>>> way as I've used both but I will just point out 2 things from my
> >>>>> experience with it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) For version tracking, we use projects and not milestones. I don't
> >>>>> know if this is the best way to do things but that's what we have
> >> been
> >>>>> using and seems to work ok as you can list multiple projects
> >>>>> (versions) for an Issue or PR:
> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects?type=classic
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2) Robbie's point about whether or not Issues get opened is a really
> >>>>> good point and something that is not consistent at all in Accumulo.
> >>>>> What I have found is it is all over the place. In some cases people
> >>>>> just open PRs and essentially are self documenting issues with the
> >>>>> fix. In other cases people open up issues and then open up PRs. It
> >>>>> does get confusing sometimes since they share the same numbering and
> >>>>> name space. It may make sense to try and establish some guidelines if
> >>>>> we go with Github Issues just so we are consistent about it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 2:40 PM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 4, 2024, at 1:26 PM, Robbie Gemmell <
> >>> robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To the later point around Discussions, I do think enabling those
> >>> could
> >>>>>>> be good either way since, just like with Jira, people will often
> >>>>>>> create Issues to ask questions rather than e.g mail a mailing
> >> list.
> >>>>>>> They might use a Discussion instead though.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +1 agree that having discussions enabled would be an upgrade for
> >>> users, big improvement over mailing lists.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 20:52, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There's been a few threads about this general subject, but most
> >>> have
> >>>>>>>> concentrated on Classic in particular. I think it's worth
> >>> discussing
> >>>>>>>> migration of ActiveMQ as a whole and diving a bit deeper into
> >> the
> >>> details
> >>>>>>>> of why a migration makes (or doesn't make) sense and what the
> >>> challenges
> >>>>>>>> may be.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> To this end I've put together this document [1]. I hope it will
> >>> be of
> >>>>>>>> service to the community as we consider this option.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Justin
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://github.com/jbertram/activemq-website/wiki/Apache-ActiveMQ-GitHub-Issues-Migration-Review
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>
> >>
>
>
