I would prefer GitHub issues.
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Nozomi Kurihara <[email protected]> wrote: > I think using Github issues is simpler, but using JIRA is fine as well for me. > > Nozomi Kurihara > > 2017/06/09 10:05 に、"Matteo Merli" <[email protected]> を書き込みました: > > Any thought about the JIRA vs github issues for tracking? > > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:56 PM Joe F <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The SGA has just been submitted. > > > > Joe > > > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > > > Please respond to emails here and discuss the podling. In order to > move > > to > > > the incubator we need to start talking. > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Matteo Merli <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > I hope everyone already subscribed this mailing list already. > > > > > > Several iCLAs were processed by the ASF secretary on Friday. Accounts > > > should be setup and I will add to the LDAP groups tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > I wanted to start the discussion on multiple points for onboarding > into > > > the > > > > incubator. > > > > > > > > First of all, which tools we want to keep using when moving the > > > development > > > > over at the ASF. > > > > > > > > In particular, we need to chose about: > > > > 1. Git repository and committer workflow > > > > 2. Github issues vs JIRA > > > > > > The proposal requested a JIRA which I requested and is now available > at > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PULSAR/ > > > > > > If the project wishes to switch to Github issues that would be fine. > > > > > > > 3. Jenkins vs Travis for CI > > > > > > > > The support for using Github tools for Apache project has been a > recent > > > > addition. Masakazu pointed to me that it was actually discussed at > the > > > > latest ApacheCon (https://youtu.be/yWurOHvm5WM?t=1078) and that > right > > > now > > > > INFRA is supporting projects to use Github as the primary repository > > and > > > > issues. > > > > > > > > I think for us it would make sense to continue using Github tools > that > > > has > > > > worked reasonably well in the past and it will be frictionless both > > from > > > > our perspective as for potential contributors. > > > > > > > > The other point would be to directly transfer the repository from > > > > "yahoo/pulsar" to "apache/incubator-pulsar", instead of creating a > new > > > > repo. > > > > The advantage would be to keep all the current issues/PRs, plus > people > > > that > > > > are subscribed to the repository events. > > > > > > > > I think that the logistic for this would be to give access to > > > yahoo/pulsar > > > > repo to ASF INFRA so that they can perform the switch. > > > > > > We need to have a discussion on this. We can discuss Consensus as > part of > > > the discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > About the SGA from Yahoo, Joe can you also update here whenever the > > grant > > > > is submitted? > > > > > > > > Finally, when repository and grant aspects are resolved, I would > > suggest > > > to > > > > make one last release (1.18), ASAP, before moving the code over to > the > > > > ASF. The reason is that we have already accumulated lot of changes > and > > > > fixes in the current master and that it will take us some amount of > > time > > > to > > > > prepare well for an official release within the incubator. > > > > We will need to sort lot of details and possibly make multiple > > iterations > > > > before we can be ready for a release. > > > > > > If you want to do a release on the old infrastructure then perhaps > that > > is > > > first. > > > > > > > > > > > So, release what we have right now, and then concentrate in making a > > > proper > > > > release in the incubator (detached from the amount of "features" > > > contained). > > > > > > > > Any thoughts / opinions? > > > > > > > > Please also raise any other point or question that I have missed. > > > > > > > > Matteo > > > > > > Regards, > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > >
