On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:50 AM Josh Elser wrote:
> Sorry for the top-post.
>
> I really appreciate the numbered list below, Keith. Specifically the
> answers to #1 and #4 make me very happy.
>
> I think #5 needs some a little more concrete (IMO, you should just
> decide what it should be).
>
> #
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Josh Elser wrote:
> Sorry for the top-post.
>
> I really appreciate the numbered list below, Keith. Specifically the answers
> to #1 and #4 make me very happy.
>
> I think #5 needs some a little more concrete (IMO, you should just decide
> what it should be).
My w
Sorry for the top-post.
I really appreciate the numbered list below, Keith. Specifically the
answers to #1 and #4 make me very happy.
I think #5 needs some a little more concrete (IMO, you should just
decide what it should be).
#6 +1 to a message to private, this is how Apache general reque
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Mike Walch wrote:
>>
>> 4. What is the migration plan for existing issues? Will we have split
>> issue
>>tracker for years?
>>
>> The proposal documents migrating existing JIRA issues as they are worked.
>> This means that existing JIRA issues that are nev
>
> 4. What is the migration plan for existing issues? Will we have split
> issue
>tracker for years?
>
> The proposal documents migrating existing JIRA issues as they are worked.
> This means that existing JIRA issues that are never worked will never
> migrate. After all branches are re
On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
>> -0 as an initial reaction because I'm still not convinced that GH issues
>> provides any additional features or better experience than JIRA does, and
>> this change would only serve to fra
I'm -0.
On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Christopher wrote:
> Asking if he's -0 or -1.
>
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018, 11:08 Sean Busbey wrote:
>
> > Are you asking if Mike is "-0" vs "-1"? Or just if he has an opposition
> at
> > all?
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2018/03/02 01:10:16, Christopher wrote:
> > >
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
> -0 as an initial reaction because I'm still not convinced that GH issues
> provides any additional features or better experience than JIRA does, and
> this change would only serve to fragment an already bare community.
>
> My concerns that woul
Asking if he's -0 or -1.
On Sat, Mar 3, 2018, 11:08 Sean Busbey wrote:
> Are you asking if Mike is "-0" vs "-1"? Or just if he has an opposition at
> all?
>
>
>
> On 2018/03/02 01:10:16, Christopher wrote:
> > Is your concern significant enough to oppose the proposed action from
> Mike
> > Walc
Are you asking if Mike is "-0" vs "-1"? Or just if he has an opposition at all?
On 2018/03/02 01:10:16, Christopher wrote:
> Is your concern significant enough to oppose the proposed action from Mike
> Walch?
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018, 19:56 Mike Drob wrote:
>
> > My only concern is of the so
Is your concern significant enough to oppose the proposed action from Mike
Walch?
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018, 19:56 Mike Drob wrote:
> My only concern is of the sort that contributors will be expected to have
> different workflows based on what they are working on.
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:41 AM,
My only concern is of the sort that contributors will be expected to have
different workflows based on what they are working on.
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Mike Walch wrote:
> I would like to start up this discussion again. I don't think we have
> reached consensus on moving the primary Ac
> You're planning to document how GitHub tech would be used to make
releases on these repositories? And, we're in agreement that JIRA would not
be used at all for these repositories?
I think these repos are simple but I am happy to document any GH issues
workflows that are unclear to contributors.
After the rest of the discussion, I feel like I need to be explicit (so,
I'm sorry if I'm being pedantic and we're already in agreement here):
You're planning to document how GitHub tech would be used to make
releases on these repositories? And, we're in agreement that JIRA would
not be used a
I would like to start up this discussion again. I don't think we have
reached consensus on moving the primary Accumulo repo to GitHub issues. The
primary repo has common workflows (i.e creating issues that affect multiple
versions) that don't easily transition to GitHub issues. I have heard
several
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Mike Walch wrote:
>
>
> > Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a trial. How do
> we
> > do a release? What does aggregating issues fixed in a particular version
> > look like?
> >
>
> You can tag GH issues with a version but I think it's best t
Thanks Mike, those are great answers! They don't even have to be the final
answers, but I'm really happy to see that the migration path has been
thought about.
I disagree with you about the criticality of security issues and how we
handle them, but we can run a "fire drill" during the trial to ful
I am going to try to answer your questions. Keep in mind that my answers
are how
I would handle the transition. The point of the trial is to iterate and
find the best
solution for everyone.
> Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a trial. How do we
> do a release? What does agg
The move from SVN to GIT had a clear plan for what happens to the old code,
and a migration strategy for moving commits over.
I think we're having trouble communicating here, but I'm really coming at
this from the perspective of "what if this is fabulously successful" - I
don't want to be seen as
I want step back a little. I don't view this as just changing our issue
tracker. I want to move to GitHub issues as I see a lot of benefit in using
one tool to manage issues, view/browse code, and review pull requests. One
tool makes contributing to open source so much easier. I think it will
bec
On 2/15/18 6:18 PM, Christopher wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:08 PM Josh Elser wrote:
On 2/15/18 4:56 PM, Christopher wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:55 PM Josh Elser wrote:
On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration
pla
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:08 PM Josh Elser wrote:
> On 2/15/18 4:56 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:55 PM Josh Elser wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> > What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration
> plan
> > for our
On 2/15/18 4:56 PM, Christopher wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:55 PM Josh Elser wrote:
On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration
plan
for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
As Keith said in the other
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:55 PM Josh Elser wrote:
> On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> >>> What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration
> >> plan
> >>> for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> As Keith said in the other thread, we d
On 2/15/18 4:17 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
What do we do if the trial is wildly successful? Is there a migration
plan
for our currently open issues? We have almost 1000 of them.
As Keith said in the other thread, we don't need to have all the answers up
front.
You're right, we don't need to have
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 3:05 PM, Christopher wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 2:55 PM Mike Drob wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Christopher
> wrote:
> >
> > > While I think Spark's reasons might be interesting, I find it hard to
> > > believe that any reason they might have would
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 2:55 PM Mike Drob wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Christopher wrote:
>
> > While I think Spark's reasons might be interesting, I find it hard to
> > believe that any reason they might have would be so compelling as to
> > prevent us from even performing a trial
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Christopher wrote:
> While I think Spark's reasons might be interesting, I find it hard to
> believe that any reason they might have would be so compelling as to
> prevent us from even performing a trial. I think should still experiment
> with GH issues, as a tri
has been
> a glorified tool for naming branches.
>
>
> From: Christopher [ctubb...@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 1:12 PM
> To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
>
> +1 for a trial..
engaged in discussions. For me, Jira has been a glorified
tool for naming branches.
From: Christopher [ctubb...@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 1:12 PM
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
While I think Spark's reasons might be interesting, I find it hard to
believe that any reason they might have would be so compelling as to
prevent us from even performing a trial. I think should still experiment
with GH issues, as a trial, regardless of what additional input we might
get from other
Before switching to GitHub issues, I would like somebody to do an
investigation into why Apache Spark isn't using them. They are heavy heavy
heavy users of PRs, but don't use issues and I'd like to see if they've
already done the leg-work on figuring this out.
Not saying that we need to be like Sp
+1 for a trial... because we shouldn't be afraid to experiment with our
workflows. I also like working on GH, and want to see if it will result in
a valuable change or not for Accumulo, and if it is, I'd like to switch to
it at some point (I like the trial first, because I don't know if there
will
-0 as an initial reaction because I'm still not convinced that GH issues
provides any additional features or better experience than JIRA does,
and this change would only serve to fragment an already bare community.
My concerns that would push that -0 to a -1 include (but aren't limited to):
*
I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues.
GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial period,
the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using
Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.
35 matches
Mail list logo
