>All that said, this was a number of years ago I agree. GitHub makes noticeable progress nowadays.
>I'd want to see that demonstrated before >changing all of Calcite over. How do you want that demonstrated? Apache Airflow does use GitHub Issues, they do ship releases. Many top-starred Apache repositories use GitHub issues: https://github.com/orgs/apache/repositories?q=&type=&language=&sort=stargazers Do you think Calcite has something unique in the release process that makes GitHub infeasible? Apparently, issues and PRs can be assigned to a milestone. Apparently, committers can close the milestone. >I'm a little confused in your original message, you have two questions. >Are you suggesting that Calcite would use both Jira and Github issues? No way. I think we should move all issue management to GitHub. I just thought that questions like "should we keep JIRA" or "should we move to GitHub" might provoke slightly different discussions with helpful comments even though it is basically the same question. >Should PRs always have issues or is a PR sufficient >for inclusion in a release? I believe, the current development workflow allows: * PR without JIRA * commits without PR * commits without PR and JIRA (just commits) It is up to the committer if the change is significant enough to have JIRA or PR or whatever. >GH issues created a black hole where anyone could create issues and >they could just get "lost" Nothing prevents the issue from being "lost" in Calcite JIRA :-/ Vladimir
