Agree with the single record of truth. All changes currently go through Jira. It's part of the process and documented in the "how to contribute" page: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/HowToContribute
The git mirror at github is just that, a mirror of svn and meant to be a convenience. We don't use the PR process there, etc... Patrick On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Chris Nauroth <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>> > > >>> > >>> >
