Related, do we also want to enable the GitHub wiki and project
management boards, with the possibility of migrating the current
confluence wiki to GitHub as well depending on how we like it?
I.e. the change to the vscode .asf.yml file would be:
github:
features:
wiki: true
issues: true
projects: true
On 9/23/21 11:50 AM, Beckerle, Mike wrote:
(sorry if you get this twice. A few email difficulties of late. I'm switching
email systems for Apache email.)
I think we have a pretty good consensus that we should go with github
issues for VSCode debugger, and I think steve lawrence's point that we can
view this as a trial and maybe migrate regular daffodil to it eventually is
well taken also.
I do use JIRA's reports sometimes. Like the open-close graph they have
which shows trend of opening vs. closing tickets. Github may or may not
have that sort of reporting. But it's not critical.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 11:32 AM Interrante, John A (GE Research, US) <
john.interra...@ge.com> wrote:
+1 for using GitHub issues in Apache's VSCode Debugger repo.
-----Original Message-----
From: Beckerle, Mike <mbecke...@owlcyberdefense.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 10:30 AM
To: dev@daffodil.apache.org
Subject: EXT: github issues vs. JIRA for VSCode Debugger - Fw: Apache JIRA
vs. github "issues"
So, I inquired about whether we need to use JIRA, or can just use github
issues.
I got a reply basically saying we can do what we prefer. (reply is below.
Apache Airflow uses github issues)
The regular Apache Daffodil repo has a pretty big investment in using
JIRA. I'm not suggesting we consider switching that.
For VSCode, we could stick with using JIRA, but that would mix its issues
into the ~390 other Apache Daffodil issues.
There are pros and cons to this.
I am wondering if for the VSCode repo (once established), we should just
use github issues instead.
Thoughts?
-mikeb
________________________________
From: Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 10:21 AM
To: Beckerle, Mike <mbecke...@owlcyberdefense.com>
Cc: us...@infra.apache.org <us...@infra.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Apache JIRA vs. github "issues"
It's quite OK to only use Github Issues/Discussions - we switched to GH in
Apache Airflow ~ 2 years ago I think.
And a comment from our perspective of a big project that uses GitHub
Issues at its inception, switched to JIRA and finally returned back to
GitHub issues when they matured. Others might have different experience but
this is ours (and I am pretty sure I am representing view of pretty much
whole Airflow community).
I witnessed just the last switch - from JIRA to GitHub. We stopped using
JIRA in Apache Airflow in favour of GitHub Issues and Discussions and we
NEVER looked back. Not a minute. Not even a second. Absolutely no-one
missed JIRA. Not by far.
That was such an amazing improvement in the overall workflow and
contributor's engagement. I don't even imagine how we would be able to run
the project with JIRA.
The overall experience, integration level, overhead needed to manage JIRA
issues, dual-logging-in and syncing between the two were absolutely
unmanageable for us. With GitHub Issues we chose to base our "change
tracking" based on PR# rather than Issue # optional and it made a whole
world of difference.
Especially recently with GithubDiscussions added to the mix and ability to
convert issues into discussions (and back) if they are not real issues.
J.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 4:01 PM Beckerle, Mike <
mbecke...@owlcyberdefense.com<mailto:mbecke...@owlcyberdefense.com>>
wrote:
I read a old blog post from infra about increasing github integration.
I am wondering about Apache JIRA, vs. using the issues feature of github,
for an Apache project repo.
Can we use github's issues feature, or do we have to use Apache's JIRA? Is
there a policy, or even strong preference on this issue?
Thanks
Mike Beckerle
Apache Daffodil PMC
