It's just my preference. I do not think current workflow is so painful that we have to replace it. Would the GitHub workflow boost our review? I doubt it somehow. Actually, I like the current workflow. Not only because I am used to it, but also it is easier to review all the discussions.
Best, Chunwei On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 7:47 PM Ruben Q L <[email protected]> wrote: > -1 I am satisfied with the current situation. > > My vote might be biased because I have used Jira for many years (and I have > never used Github for issue tracking). > I have the impression that some of the problems described discussion are > not per se Jira-related, but they appear because we misuse the current > tools (and it would remain more or less the same if we switched from Jira > to GitHub Issues). > I like the current workflow, as described in the website [1]; the > navigation between Jira and Github can be inconvenient for some, but for me > it is not painful. > IMO every change must have a dedicated Jira ticket, that should be the > norm; and having a ticket-less PR or commit should be exception, only for > very specific cases; high level discussion (e.g. feature design) should > happen in Jira, low-level details (e.g. line by line code review) in the > PR; but I must admit that sometimes this does not happen. > I think Jira has some useful features that I'm not sure we can find in > Github (perhaps we can, as I said before, I'm not very familiar with it) > like customized dashboards, or linked issues ("issue A is blocked by / > caused by / duplicated by / ... issue B"). > > [1] https://calcite.apache.org/develop/#contributing > > > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 9:12 AM Vladimir Sitnikov < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >I think JIRA works well. > > > > I would appreciate it if you could clarify. > > What I suggest would work better than JIRA in virtually all the cases. So > > why stick with JIRA? > > > > Vladimir > > >
