Hello, My discussion "vote" is +1 keep Bugzilla (not much work for me, and it works for me really well) -1 JIRA (I find it very slow last time I used it) +1 Github Issues (but what happens if at some step we have to leave github provided we don"t loose bugzilla history)
Regards Philippe On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 5:05 PM Felix Schumacher < felix.schumac...@internetallee.de> wrote: > My discussion "vote" is > > +1 keep Bugzilla (not much work for me, and it works for me really well) > -0.8 JIRA (I find it difficult to use) > +0.5 Github Issues (they seem to be lightweight enough to be > understandable by me, but I fear, that we would loose a lot of old > issues (which might be a good thing)) > > Felix > > Am 25.11.21 um 12:09 schrieb Vladimir Sitnikov: > > Hi, > > > > Does anybody have a strong opinion regarding Bugzilla vs JIRA vs GitHub > > issues? > > > > Frankly speaking, I am inclined to migrate to GitHub Issues or to the ASF > > JIRA. > > > > I have no strong opinion between JIRA vs GitHub Issues, however, the > > current JMeter development workflow is pull-request centric, > > so GitHub Issues would be easier for me. > > > > Let us try the following vote (see https://rangevoting.org/ ): > > -1..+1 keep using Bugzilla for issue management > > -1..+1 migrate to GitHub Issues > > -1..+1 migrate to ASF JIRA > > > > Here's my vote: > > -0.8 keep using Bugzilla > > +1 migrate to GitHub Issues > > +0.8 migrate to ASF JIRA > > > > AFAIK there is no automatic issue migration, so any change would involve > > dealing with issues somehow. > > AFAIK there are no legal implications, so we can use either issue > tracking > > system. > > > > Bugzilla: > > Pros: > > * It worked more-or-less fine for ages > > Cons: > > * Bugzilla is less widespread at the moment. I think only 10 or so ASF > > projects are listed at https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi > > * There's no integration between pull requests and issues > > > > GitHub issues: > > Pros: > > * GitHub issues integrate well with pull requests and discussions. I > think > > the vast majority of contributions come via pull requests > > * It is probably easier for external contributors. In practice, GitHub > is a > > de-facto standard now > > * Issues integrate well with GitHub Actions. We do not use it > extensively, > > however, I think we can label issues/prs, and things like that > > * Query language is more or less known (for instance, I do use > > https://github.com/gradle/gradle/issues a lot) > > * Rich comment formatting: code samples, images > > Cons: > > * Only 20 external collaborators for issue triage (see > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/Git+-+.asf.yaml+features#Git.asf.yamlfeatures-AssigningexternalcollaboratorswiththetriageroleonGitHub > > ) > > * Non-ASF-hosted solution. I think this is a low risk. > > > > JIRA: > > Pros: > > * Other ASF projects use JIRA. For example, INFRA. So PMCs and committers > > can't really avoid JIRA :) > > * It works more-or-less well for Apache Calcite (I'm a member of PMC for > > Calcite) > > * Query language is more or less known > > * Search can find similar cases across different ASF projects. For > > instance, I used ASF JIRA to figure out how (and which) projects enable > > GitHub Discussions. > > * Rich comment formatting: code samples, images > > * Non-committers can get access to JIRA for issue triage > > * ASF-hosted solution. We are safe if GitHub adds limits in the future > > (e.g. "no more than 20 repos per organization") > > Cons: > > * Somebody might think JIRA is "heavyweight", however, it looks like the > > last couple of years ASF JIRA works just fine > > > > Vladimir > > > > -- Cordialement Philippe M. Ubik-Ingenierie
