I see your point. In these cases would it make more sense then to link it to the PR when closing the ticket? As in add a comment with a direct link to the PR to more easily view the comments?
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Steve Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/11/2017 09:36 AM, Taylor Wise wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Steve Lawrence <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> > >> A similar method would be to use github. Apache mirrors the Daffodil git > >> repository to github, and with the use of Apache gitbox, can even > >> support accepting github pull requests. This has some very obvious > >> benefits. Many people are already very familiar with github and so could > >> be a good way to attract more contributors. It also has an intuitive > >> interface for creating and accepting pull requests, again reducing > >> barrier to entry. Github also very cleanly integrates with TravisCI to > >> test pull requests. Note that JIRA must still be the bug tracker, and > >> gitbox copies all review comments to the original JIRA bug as comments. > >> This is good for tracking the review comments, but makes JIRA bugs > >> pretty messy and hard to follow. Also, there are some criticism of the > >> github code review interface, or people that simple do not want or have > >> a github account. Like the above, it also requires network connectivity > >> to draft reviews, though this may be a non-issue nowadays. > >> > > > > I personally like the interface provided by GitHub. At least with the > > graphical diff it makes it easy to see the immediate changes as well as > > historically what has changed. How does it make the JIRA bugs messy? > I'm > > curious, I haven't seen this in action. > > > > Yeah, the github interface is definitely much prettier and somewhat > easier to look at than ReviewBoard or email diffs (though, I'm used to > email diffs on other projects, so it's all the same to me). And the > TravisCI integration is very appealing to me. Though, I would kindof > miss the ability to have nested review comments. > > As an example of the JIRA messiness, Apache NiFi uses the github > workflow. Here is a random pull request with 11 comments on one commit: > > https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2162 > > And here is the associated JIRA issue with those comments copied in: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1706 > > Here's another one that's particularly bad with huge diffs in the JIRA > comments: > > PR: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2181 > JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4428 > > Neither of these pull requests are particularly complicated too. Imagine > this with some of the big patches we've had in the past with lots of > comments. > > It's not terrible, but I think it makes legitimate JIRA comments > difficult to find, and might even discourage comments in JIRA issues--I > haven't looked alot, but I have yet to find anything other than ASF > Github Bot comments in the NiFi JIRA issues. > -- -Taylor Wise
