Mentors, Any updates here? I looked at the thread that Chris R had pasted to kick off this discussion. The thread meandered. I saw a comment from Jim J stating :
Recall that issue trackers have not been, traditionally, held under the requirement of being under ASF infra nor infra control. If people wish to use external, 3rd party issue/bug trackers, they are taking on the risks themselves, as far as SLAs, historical access, etc... Does this mean that it's up to us to pick GH Issues? -s On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Maxime Beauchemin < [email protected]> wrote: > Oh right! Problem solved. I assumed wrong since I probably tried to edit > someone else's title before and assumed I had lost all title editing > rights... > > Max > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Bolke de Bruin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You can edit your own pr titles just fine I think? I do it all the time > at > > least. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On 29 jun. 2016, at 18:09, Maxime Beauchemin < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Somewhat related: Jira is down at the moment > > > > > > I'm ready to send a PR just now and knowing that I can't create the > JIRA > > issue, I can't get an ID for it. And I know I won't be able to edit the > > title of my GH PR later since I don't have admin rights in GH. Checkmate. > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Maxime Beauchemin < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> Awesome! Somehow consistent and well integrated tools make quite a > > difference. > > >> > > >> For first time or casual contributors it's annoying to create a JIRA > > account to create a single issue to get an ID to paste into the GH PR, > then > > it can be unclear where to have the discussion. I hate to have to > > walkthrough teammates (new contributors) through this process. > > >> > > >> I understand why Gnu doesn't like GH, I get it, it's the philosophical > > principle at the root of Gnu that is incompatible with GH. But Apache > > choosing Atlassian is probably because that was the best option 5 or 10 > > years ago. Consistency across Apache projects is great, but consistency > > with the open source movement is more important to me. > > >> > > >> Max > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Jeremiah Lowin <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >>> Thanks for the heads up Chris! > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:21 AM Chris Riccomini < > > [email protected]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > FYI- it sounds like there's some discussion about allowing GH > issues > > >>> > instead of JIRA. > > >>> > > > >>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > >>> > From: John D. Ament <[email protected]> > > >>> > Date: Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 7:17 AM > > >>> > Subject: Projects using GitHub issues > > >>> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > All, > > >>> > > > >>> > I started a discussion on legal discuss, as I was told VP Legal > > approved > > >>> > using GitHub issues. I have no specific concerns, other than > > ensuring that > > >>> > permissions are propagated. > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d2cb0eed30d72976a2f54893f132c1fe300a86d2fdbce1422763c9f0@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E > > >>> > > > >>> > Its clear to me that legal-discuss isn't where this should start, > so > > I'm > > >>> > not sure why VP Legal approved. Anyways, I wanted to get opinions > > from the > > >>> > incubator on who should be discussing this issue. > > >>> > > > >>> > John > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >
