I prefer the workflow in Github as you guy, but to be fair with Jira ticket system I mentioned it.
@Marc, yes Jira can facilitate a lot the management. However, we do not use it fully. In our workflow, there is no planning/roadmap for the next release per se. Things seem to work in an ad-hoc fashion. On the other hand, when you need to break down milestones into issues/tickets/tasks and then divide them into sprints, and manage a team of developers, the oversight provided by Jira system is very good; specially, when issues start to take more than a single sprint to finish. On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Marc-Aurèle Brothier <ma...@exoscale.ch> wrote: > @rafael, you said: they all required Jira tickets to track the discussion > and facilitate the management > > I can see the discussion happening in the PR on github, but the Jira ticket > by itself doesn't do much, except copy/pasting the github discussion. Then > it's down to "facilitate the management", which I only see as listing the > changes for a release as far as I know. But this can be achieved on github > too. > > As Daan mentioned, there are those things that are not code related which > should have a way of tracking. But what's the difference in tracking them > as a Jira issue vs a Github issue (they can't be a PR)? Those are point of > view exchanges with messages & links, with a final status, most of the time > without a strong link to a release number. If they do, they can be added to > a milestone. > > So far I don't see how things done with Jira cannot be achieved on Github. > It's just a matter of changing habits to simplify the workflow for new > comers (and old joiners too ;-) ). > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Will, you are speaking my mind; any external registration tool should be > > based on the source. The only reason for having an external tool without > > relation to the code is to keep track of what is *not* (or not fully) > > implemented. > > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Rafael Weingärtner < > > rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I meant a way of describing them (changes/proposals) further. Sometimes > > we > > > have commits only with title, and then the Jira ticket would be a way > of > > > documenting that commit. I do prefer the idea of inserting the whole > > > description in the commit body though. [for me] it looks easier to work > > > directly with commits and PRs; as you said, we can generate release > notes > > > based on commits directly [and issues on GH]. However, for that, we > need > > to > > > fine-tune our workflow. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 8:40 AM, Will Stevens <wstev...@cloudops.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I am +1 to relaxing the requirement of Jira ticket. > > > > > > > > Rafael, what do you mean when you say "Jira tickets are used to > > register > > > > changes"? > > > > > > > > I think ever since 4.9 the actual PRs included in the code are the > > source > > > > of truth for the changes in the actual code (at least from a release > > > notes > > > > perspective). This is why the release notes can show changes that > only > > > > have PRs and no Jira ticket. At least my release notes generator is > > > built > > > > that way. I think Rohit has built a similar release notes generator, > > so > > > I > > > > can't speak to his version... > > > > > > > > *Will Stevens* > > > > Chief Technology Officer > > > > c 514.826.0190 > > > > > > > > <https://goo.gl/NYZ8KK> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Rafael Weingärtner < > > > > rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Marc, yes Jira tickets are used to register changes. However, what > > > Rohit > > > > > and others (including me) are noticing is that there are certain > > types > > > of > > > > > changes (minor/bureaucracy) that do not require Jira tickets. The > > issue > > > > is > > > > > the wording “change”. What consist of a change that is worth > > mentioning > > > > in > > > > > the release notes? Everything we do in a branch is a change > towards a > > > > > release, but not everything is useful for operators/administrators > to > > > > see. > > > > > > > > > > I would say that to fix bugs, introduce new features, extend > existing > > > > > features, introduce a major change in the code such as that > standard > > > > maven > > > > > thing that you did, they all required Jira tickets to track the > > > > discussion > > > > > and facilitate the management. On the other side of the spectrum, > we > > > have > > > > > things such as removing dead/unused code, opening a new version > > > (creating > > > > > the upgrade path that we still use for the DB), fix a description > in > > an > > > > API > > > > > method, and so on. Moreover, the excessive use of Jira tickets > leads > > to > > > > > hundreds of Jira tickets that we do not know that status of. We > have > > > > quite > > > > > a big number of tickets opened that could be closed. This has been > > > worse; > > > > > we are improving as time goes by. > > > > > > > > > > I would say that to make this more transparent to others > (especially > > > > > newcomers), we need to discuss it, then write it down to make it > > > > > transparent the way we are working. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:59 AM, Marc-Aurèle Brothier < > > > ma...@exoscale.ch > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > That's a good idea, because people are more and more used to only > > > > create > > > > > PR > > > > > > on github, and it would be helpful to be more explanatory on the > > way > > > we > > > > > > work to push changes. I still think we should encourage the use > of > > > the > > > > > > github milestone as Rohit did with the 4.11.0 ( > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/milestone/3?closed=1) to > list > > > the > > > > > > changes in the release notes with the help of the labels to tag > the > > > PRs > > > > > > instead of relying on the jira ticket (it requires to have > another > > > > > login). > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I can remember, the JIRA tickets are used to list the > > > changes > > > > > of > > > > > > a release, but nothing else. Or am I missing something? > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc-Aurèle > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Rohit Yadav < > > > > rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To make it easier for people to contribute changes and > encourage > > > > > > > PR/contributions, should we relax the requirement of a JIRA > > ticket > > > > for > > > > > > pull > > > > > > > requests that solve trivial/minor issues such as doc bugs, > build > > > > fixes > > > > > > etc? > > > > > > > A JIRA ticket may still be necessary for new features and > > > non-trivial > > > > > > > bugfixes or changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another alternative could be to introduce a CONTRIBUTING.md [1] > > > that > > > > > > > explains the list of expected things to contributors when they > > > send a > > > > > PR > > > > > > > (for example, a jira id, links to fs or other resources, a > short > > > > > summary > > > > > > > and long description, test results etc). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://help.github.com/articles/setting-guidelines- > > > > > > > for-repository-contributors/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Rohit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <https://cloudstack.apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com > > > > > > > www.shapeblue.com > > > > > > > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > > > > > > > @shapeblue > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Rafael Weingärtner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Rafael Weingärtner > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Daan > > > -- Rafael Weingärtner
