What do you think ? https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10176 (I pinned it)
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> wrote: > I love the idea with Pinned Issue keeping "current initiatives". > > TL;DR; Summarizing the current proposal > > * We keep pretty much everything in labelled Github Issues (including > "meta" issues) > * We disable back Wiki in Github > * We have a pinned issue with "Current Initiatives" linked > * We cleanup CWiki move it/remove outdated info and the only thing that > stays there, for now, are: > * "Announcements" (which we might later move to airflow.apache.org) > * Process description for Airflow 2.0 > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Airflow+2.0+-+Planning > * AIPs > > If everyone is happy with this approach I am happy to make it happen :). > > J. > > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 12:35 PM Kamil Breguła <kamil.breg...@polidea.com> > wrote: > >> 1. I do not see a problem. Issues may have a prefix in the title, which >> will allow us to easily find them. >> >> Release - Airflow 2.0 >> Release - Airflow 1.10 >> AIP-32 - API >> AIP-XXX - Docker Image/Helm Chart >> AIP-XXX - XXXX >> >> However, I do not mind using labels in this case. >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/labels/AIP-31 >> >> 2. I think we can use the pinned issues. This will allow you to find them >> easily because they will be closer to the tickets. >> >> https://docs.github.com/en/github/managing-your-work-on-github/pinning-an-issue-to-your-repository >> >> This feature has a significant limitation as we can only pin 3 issues, but >> I think we can benefit from it as it will be easy to stay organized. To >> overcome this limitation, one of the items may be indexed with the >> currently running projects. For now, I've pinned an issue with Airflow >> 2.0 >> release info so we can see what it looks like. When we like it, we can >> create an index and pin it. I think it will be much newer friendly than >> WIKI. WDYT? >> >> Best regards, >> Kamil >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> . >> >> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:49 AM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> >> wrote: >> >> > I think it describes very well what we discussed so far. I have two >> points >> > to add: >> > >> > 1) Using Milestone: >> > >> > I prefer to keep milestones to only mark stuff for global releases of >> > Airflow and nothing else. If we use Milestones for SIG groups this will >> > become unmanageable (and I know Milestones are used by the release >> > management scripts to verify if everything marked for release is already >> > merged). >> > >> > 2) CWiki vs. Github Wiki and Index of "Currently running Airflow >> > initiatives" >> > >> > Another thing that I wanted to add is whether we use both wikis (or one >> > only) after cleanup I proposed. >> > I think CWiki is better for design docs/discussions etc. - it has >> diagram >> > support built-in and a few other features that make it easier to have >> > better "design" discussion. Github Wiki is very poor. >> > I agree that Github issues are great for most of the stuff. But I think >> we >> > could use Github Wiki to keep index with links to the issues + one >> sentence >> > of explanation for those more "permanent" and long-running "meta" >> > issues.I'd call it "Currently running Airflow initiatives": >> > >> > What I can see there currently is: >> > >> > * Airflow 2.0 Progress >> > * Backport Release 2nd wave >> > * Quarantine Issues (master, v1-10-test, v1-10-stable) >> > * Refactors and cleanups >> > * Pylint >> > * MyPy >> > * ... >> > * SIG Groups >> > * link to meta-issue for each SIG Group >> > >> > This would be a great point for newcomers to have a look of what's >> going on >> > currently in Airflow without having to look at 500 issues. It might be >> > obvious for more seasoned committers that those initiatives are in >> progress >> > but you would not know that before you go into details of individual >> "meta" >> > issues (and you'd have to know that there are those meta issues in the >> > first place). i think it's much more discoverable if we just have one >> page >> > in Github Wiki with those. >> > >> > WDYT? >> > >> > J. >> > >> > > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
