Hi Aleks Thanks for your inputs, For migration process it is documented in https://infra.apache.org/request-bug-tracker.html we can mark jira as read only and allow user to create new issues directly in GitHub.
I don't think we need to migrate the existing issues. We can just close the existing tickets if that got merged. (Older one can get closed with their conventions and new ones required to be linked with their GitHub issues). >From what I read, every project needs some issue tracker. GitHub issues will help us to integrate some of the auto close functionality inbuilt. (We have to close issues manually during the release) Which contributor can do auto close by using closes #issueno. and can report bugs without waiting for approval. And lot of them is self service and maintained on .asf.yml file. Many of the PMCs have already using GitHub issues (Not necessary we have to follow them). But it will reduce some steps. I am sure this can also be done with existing JIRA but it requires a lot of back and forth with asf infra. Anyway thanks for your input. Regards Aman On Mon, 2 Nov, 2026, 8:59 pm Aleksandar Vidakovic, < [email protected]> wrote: > ... and then we migrate all open Jira tickets to Github? Is this really > worth the effort? If (one of) the reason(s) for this the approval process > for new accounts: is the problem really how fast we approve new > contributors? I see maybe a handful of account creation requests a week... > and: there is a reason why this process exists, people are bored out of > there mind (it seems) and create tons of spam accounts... which - I think - > is nowadays even more of an issue with all these drive-by-contributors (one > contribution, some of them don't even take the time to wait for their PR to > be reviewed and/or don't bother to respond to questions when it turns out > that they didn't read instructions)... not sure if I see how's that better > on Github? Some if not all of the housekeeping you describe in your first > email will probably also be required on Github unless there are some magic > features that I'm not aware of. This is especially true, because of the way > we process tickets. The Github PR (and as a result the commit message) is > usually pretty "anemic", it contains the usual check list of rules we have > to follow (not sure if we really have to do this... people usually just > blindly tick off these things... if we want or not) and if we are lucky the > PR title (first line of the commit message) is more or less descriptive; > but even with that I see people more and more re-using the same ticket over > and over again, because they are probably working on a longer story... but > why not chop this up in smaller sub-tasks under the original parent ticket > (at least)? As a result our changelog effectively becomes a list of Jira > tickets with limited (or no) value to end-users when it comes to > understanding what is new, what got fixed, what breaks compatibility. The > end-users can't just have a look at the changelog to get an idea what got > into our releases... but instead go ticket number by ticket number and > search Jira (I doubt that anyone is doing this... or very few people). > > What really would make life easier during releases: proper commit > conventions like https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/ or > https://commitizen-tools.github.io/commitizen/ then we could use e.g. > https://git-cliff.org/ or similar tools (all examples here from memory, > no preference) and releases would be based on the git log itself, no other > system required (neither Jira nor Github issues). For that to happen we > would need to apply a bit more discipline with the commit messages (how > many times do we still remind people to author their PRs properly with > "FINERACT-1234: Lorem Ipsum..."?), maybe write-up a little summary of the > ticket and give the reader some real information; that being said, pretty > sure there are linting tools out there that could be used to remind people. > The current git log structure we have is not in shape to use these tools... > we have just too many log patterns (sometimes "FINERACT-XXXX" prefixed, > sometimes "Merge pull request #XXXX from..." prefixed). > > As for why we use Jira to begin with: it's Apache's default (required?) > issue tracker (see: > https://www.apache.org/foundation/faq#you-have-issues-bug-reports-patches-for-a-particular-project > ). > > Cheers, > > Aleks > > > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2026 at 3:32 PM Aman Mittal <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I am seeing the lack of replies. I propose that we should drop creating >> issues in JIRA and shift to GitHub issues. That way we can get red of >> creating and approving JIRA accounts of new contributors. And we can also >> auto close the issues as soon as it gets merged. >> >> Looking forward to your feedback. And as this directly impact the >> existing process so just waiting for community feedback on this. (Maybe it >> can be a FSIP) and may need voting. >> >> PS. : I forgot to ask why are we using JIRA to begin with? >> >> Regards >> Aman >> >> >> On Thu, 29 Oct, 2026, 10:34 pm Aman Mittal, <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I want to share few concerns regarding the usage of JIRA during the >>> release process. I think a lot of things and contributions are duplicated >>> and scattered across different areas. Github for PR review, jira for >>> tracking issues and then dev list for discussions. >>> >>> Currently, several aspects of JIRA usage are slowing down our processes. >>> >>> 1. New Contributor Onboarding - As the project grows within the >>> community, many contributors are requesting JIRA account approval, and I >>> think PMC members are currently approving those manually. >>> >>> 2. Tracking and referencing them for closure - During part of release >>> process. One of the crucial step of release process documented at >>> https://fineract.apache.org/docs/develop/#_release_process is to freeze >>> JIRA and cleanup the JIRA for include issues that are merged for the >>> specific release. As JIRA issues gets piled up and need to manually review >>> each linked PR and close them. (This is one of the longer steps) >>> >>> 3. After the release vote period, both JIRA and GitHub need updating. >>> >>> I wanted to start a discussion so we can make this process more >>> efficient. I think it is the right time to discuss this as we are finishing >>> up the current release vote. >>> >>> I wanted to hear what the community thinks about this before proposing >>> anything. >>> >>> Regards >>> Aman >>> >>> >>> >>
