Hi, For me, it is important to have as few switches as possible. Ideally, jira was used and integrated with other tools, e.g. bittbucket + confluence ( https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/JMETER/Home ). But since the code is already in git and discussions can be held there ( reducing the number of switching operations), my votes:
-0.5 Bugzilla +1 migrate to GitHub Issues +0.5 migrate to ASF JIRA ps. Apache Pony Mail is under development ( https://github.com/apache/incubator-ponymail) . IHMO If it could handle images, it would also be a good discussion system (as mailing list layer eg.: https://lists.apache.org/list.html?u...@jmeter.apache.org ) Regards, Mariusz On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 at 12:10, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
