0 I’m not against it but I’ve voiced my concerns (I know at length [1] [2] and at different times [3]) with no apparent traction on most of it.
So go with it and see where it goes from there. [Here is my “short” rebuttal] I appreciate the value of GitHub issues and discussions, but I fear rather than learning to use the tools the way they were meant to be (I.e. Jira filters, reports, dashboards, and integration [2]) or have any improvements from lessons learned of past (i.e. resurrect a release ticket / checklist, with linked tickets [4]), not taking time to triage/manage issue, it will now be necessary to learn a new tool, a new way, (including adapting new process for Oracle folks who from the previous discussion will still have to use internally) and risk loosing a lot of history and possibly valid bugs in the process (like when migrating from Bugzilla to Jira). I’ve said my peace. Cheers Eric Bresie Reference (1) https://lists.apache.org/thread/mnm6zo5knzgzr90jkjm1vd8tgtqtz0o5 (2) https://lists.apache.org/thread/ovc9zzmk80b17mhg0q0r6phc57kbmjsr (3) https://lists.apache.org/thread/qgmr1g3gvgbm08ls3bf72mm5k2yxktn1 (4) https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg07020.html On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 7:57 AM Michael Bien <[email protected]> wrote: > i am all for it +1 > > i just didn't speak up since I think I did in older threads already > > - liking the idea of having a simpler issue tracker etc > - your plan is great > > -michael > > > On 30.12.21 13:53, Neil C Smith wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Theoretically this passed through about 10 days ago without any > > comment, but I also realise that it's holidays time. I'll close this > > and start work on porting Airflow's config sometime middle of next > > week, mostly via PR for review. Please speak up with full (-1) / > > partial (-0.?) concerns if you have them. > > > > Thanks and best wishes, > > > > Neil > > > > On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 at 17:07, Neil C Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Following on from the recent email discussion on GitHub issues at > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/9m74s6xl2zqwnfoq2tn391fvy2kqwcpr and > >> the current lack of someone willing / able to address the concerns in > >> JIRA .. > >> > >> I'm seeking lazy consensus on enabling GitHub issues and discussions > >> on the NetBeans repository, and porting Apache Airflow's model process > >> / configuration to meet our requirements. The aim will be to use this > >> for tracking issues in release candidates starting from mid-January > >> when we branch off for NetBeans 13, with a full switch on release of > >> NetBeans 13. > >> > >> See the wiki page on the full details of Airflow's process and best > >> practice advice at > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=191332632 > >> > >> From a release management perspective (frankly from any perspective!) > >> the current JIRA process is not working for us. Aside from the missing > >> synchronization of status, review, assignment, milestones, changes, > >> etc., we are meant to have a release process that prioritizes critical > >> and blocking issues after branching. That is not happening in any > >> viable way, and through each release I've been involved in RM'ing it's > >> got worse. > >> > >> Some key points or divergences from the wiki page linked - > >> > >> - We will not be migrating current JIRA issues en-masse. Do re-open > >> select criticals / blockers in 12.6 that still need addressing in 13 > >> at branch! > >> - The primary change record will be pull requests (not the current mix > >> of JIRA and PR). No more need for extra issues just for this purpose. > >> There will be a maintainers only issue category for task / meta issue > >> tracking. > >> - We will have similar forms to Airflow ( see > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/new/choose ) with required > >> fields, automatic labelling, links to other sources of help, etc. > >> We'll use automation via workflows where useful. > >> - We will triage aggressively. Only issues that are reproducible in > >> the latest release, actionable, and not a won't-fix should remain > >> open. Everything else will be closed or converted to discussions as > >> and until an actionable issue can be created. > >> - We will keep issue prioritization in our hands. We will also look to > >> add labelling for regressions - realistically it's critical > >> *regressions*, as well as blockers, we most need to prioritize for > >> releases. And aside from this proposal, we really should revise the > >> issue priority criteria we inherited. > >> - We won't follow Airflow's model of a triage team (for now) - let's > >> get everyone involved in this! > >> > >> > >> This thread will be open for at least 72hrs under lazy consensus. As > >> before, I'd summarize and expand that to don't make extra work for > >> other people. ie. -1 any point here if you are offering an alternative > >> that you can help implement OR if any point will cause major problems > >> / extra work for you. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Neil > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists > > > > -- Eric Bresie [email protected]
