Boris, I hate to be strongly opinionated but I have to violently disagree with you on some things here;
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Boris Stoyanov < boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I do understand your point as developers if you want to fix something just > open the PR and not deal with any extra details like JIRA tickets and etc, > but I must say that JIRA tickets are quite often looked up from users as > they experience an issue. It is not more or less effort for users to look up github PRs than Jira tickets. They still need to be clever about search terms and still might miss out. > Let’s say we’ve fixed an annoying UI bug in master and there’s no ticket > for it in JIRA. As a user, if you try to search for this particular issue > where would you go? In JIRA or GitHub? How would you know which release to > pickup if you’re just an infrastructure guy and not following Github. > What is following here and why not Github but Jira. > > Tracking every change with such tool is proven good practice in SDLC, No it is not. Absolutely not. That is what we have revision control systems for. Your good practice is only true for enterprise controlled projects. In cloudstack there are a lot of wild forks because this enterprisy way of controlling change has pushed people away from mainstream. This is a force to be reckoned with and we can not completely ban it, but we have to minimise it if we want to survive as project. > it brings visibility and it’s a tool meant to be used not only from > developers, but from everyone involved in the project. > How is this true for Jira anywhere near as much as it is true for github? > > I also got the feeling that lacking a JIRA ticket could become a common > practice in community submission and it’s yet another reason for me to be > -1 on this. Another reason to be very much +1 on it. That is a good thing. Think about it. People submistting features and bugfixes instead of asking for them in a ticket. That is great. > Also I don’t think it’s causing big overhead, since it’s being updated > mostly automatically. > No it is not. What is done automatically? put in progress?? closing? undertest status? Only noise is added to those tickets automatically. > > Boris Stoyanov > > > boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > @shapeblue > > > > > On 13 Mar 2018, at 17:01, Khosrow Moossavi <kmooss...@cloudops.com> > wrote: > > > > I'm completely +1 on using GH as source of truth, both PR and issue wise, > > with Daan comment regarding Apache rules in mind. > > At least it doesn't need to have "yet another" integration to do > automated > > actions on an issue (such as auto close an issue by "Fixes NUMBER", > > "Closes NUMBER") directly from commit or PR body. > > > > Khosrow Moossavi > > CloudOps > > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Syed Ahmed <sah...@cloudops.com> > wrote: > > > >> I agree with the relaxation as Rohit pointed out. At this point we > should > >> ask if Jira is really needed. Most people here I believe agree that it > is > >> not. The only reason we have Jira is to track releases. This could > easily > >> be replicated in GitHub as I see that GitHub is the place where we all > >> collaborate. I would be completely in if we use GitHub issues and like > it > >> with Jira as we do with our PRs. > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:03 AM Rafael Weingärtner < > >> rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> I was checking and for some reason ACS does not have an issue tab ( > >>> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues). It might be some > >>> configuration in the repository. > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Rafael Weingärtner < > >>> rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> What do you mean by issue? PR or issue (Github issue)? > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Daan Hoogland < > >> daan.hoogl...@gmail.com > >>>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> right, also when an issue is created? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Rafael Weingärtner < > >>>>> rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> We already have. All messages on ACS' GH go to commits@c.a.o > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Daan Hoogland < > >>>>> daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ok, one issue there is Apache foundation rules. If we copy every > >>> thing > >>>>>> into > >>>>>>> jira or the mail list we are fine, where ever we have our > >>> discussions. > >>>>>> The > >>>>>>> only thing is that we need a Apache hosted record. (as in not > >>> github) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Rafael Weingärtner < > >>>>>>> rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 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/clou > >>>>> dstack/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/articl > >>>>> es/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 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Daan > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Rafael Weingärtner > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Daan > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Rafael Weingärtner > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Rafael Weingärtner > >>> > >> > > -- Daan
