FWIW, the JIRA requirement is typical of Apache projects. Most projects have a strong preference that this single record of truth lies on Apache infrastructure, hence the use of Apache JIRA and Apache's hosted git rather than GitHub. The idea is that a full permanent record of all project decisions resides in Apache infrastructure, maintained by the ASF, and not subject to external forces like a company folding and needing to shut down its site. (I don't have any reason to suspect this of GitHub, but the point is that it's something outside of ASF control.)
I don't know for sure that this is a required policy, but I wanted to point out that it's consistent with the Apache projects I've seen. --Chris Nauroth On 6/8/15, 5:19 AM, "Camille Fournier" <[email protected]> wrote: >I personally don't think that having a single record of truth and asking >people to use that record is asking too much. I'm not in favor at all of >removing the requirement for tickets to track work. Perhaps if we were >entirely in git hub it would be one thing but we aren't. > >C >On Jun 8, 2015 12:42 AM, "Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés" <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> Hi Camille, >> >> On 7 June 2015 at 14:59, Camille Fournier <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I personally think all PRs should have an associated JIRA. This is >>also >> the >> > requirement I have on my engineering team at work, and it seems >>totally >> > reasonable to me. >> > >> >> Thanks for sharing! Is it with a git pull request work flow though? Take >> this ‹ small albeit important ‹ >> pull request for instance: >> >> https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/32 >> >> I think it would be nice to avoid asking casual contributors to file >>JIRAs >> for those small patches so >> the impedance for contributing is reduced. >> >> Also, having the committer do the paperwork sounds like too much red >>tape >> given that >> the pull request is already pretty well documented. I at least would be >> very happy >> if we could just push those patches by referencing the PR in the >>comment, >> instead of a JIRA. >> >> I also suspect that eventually we might end up moving to git, so I think >> there is value in allowing >> pull requests as a submission mechanism (for some cases?), since it'll >>make >> the eventual transition >> smoother and with less unknowns. >> >> >> -rgs >> >> >> >> > C >> > >> > On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés < >> > [email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Heya, >> > > >> > > there's an increasing number of pull requests (PRs) coming through >> github >> > > (great! more contributions!). How do we deal with them? Do we need >>to >> > file >> > > a corresponding JIRA before we merge them or can we just reference >>the >> > PR? >> > > >> > > I rather not tax the contributors with having to file the JIRA, but >> > taxing >> > > the committer is also not great.. Thoughts? >> > > >> > > >> > > -rgs >> > > >> > >>
