Nice! Thanks for getting this done.
Dinesh
On Wednesday, August 8, 2018, 2:21:22 PM PDT, Mick Semb Wever
wrote:
> >
> > Great idea. +1 to moving it to the work log.
> >
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16879
This is working now.
See eg
> >
> > Great idea. +1 to moving it to the work log.
> >
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16879
This is working now.
See eg https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12926
(which I hijacked for testing and the comments in the PR have since been
deleted)
cheers,
mick
+1
> Or perhaps we should require committers to summarise in the comments. For
> most tickets, perhaps just stating ’nits from GitHub comments’. But for
> any complex tickets, summarising the conclusions of any unexpected logical
> or structural discussion would be really helpful for posterity.
+1 (nb) for the worklog approach.
Jordan
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 4:53 PM dinesh.jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID
wrote:
> +1 for preserving it as worklog.
> Dinesh
> P.S.: Apologies for the github spam :-)
> On Monday, August 6, 2018, 3:09:28 PM PDT, Mick Semb Wever <
> m...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
+1 for preserving it as worklog.
Dinesh
P.S.: Apologies for the github spam :-)
On Monday, August 6, 2018, 3:09:28 PM PDT, Mick Semb Wever
wrote:
>
> Great idea. +1 to moving it to the work log.
>
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16879
>
> Great idea. +1 to moving it to the work log.
>
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16879
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
Also +1
It might perhaps be nice to (just once) have ASF Bot comment that a GitHub
discussion has been replicated to the worklog? In the Arrow example, for
instance, it isn’t immediately obvious that there are any worklog comments to
look at.
Or perhaps we should require committers to
+1 to worklog
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 9:44 AM Ariel Weisberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Great idea. +1 to moving it to the work log.
>
> Thanks,
> Ariel
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018, at 12:40 PM, Aleksey Yeshchenko wrote:
> > Nice indeed. I assume it also doesn’t spam commits@ when done this way,
> > in which
Hi,
Great idea. +1 to moving it to the work log.
Thanks,
Ariel
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018, at 12:40 PM, Aleksey Yeshchenko wrote:
> Nice indeed. I assume it also doesn’t spam commits@ when done this way,
> in which case double +1 from me.
>
> —
> AY
>
> On 6 August 2018 at 17:18:36, Jeremiah D
Nice indeed. I assume it also doesn’t spam commits@ when done this way, in
which case double +1 from me.
—
AY
On 6 August 2018 at 17:18:36, Jeremiah D Jordan (jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com)
wrote:
Oh nice. I like the idea of keeping it but moving it to the worklog tab. +1 on
that from me.
>
Oh nice. I like the idea of keeping it but moving it to the worklog tab. +1
on that from me.
> On Aug 6, 2018, at 5:34 AM, Stefan Podkowinski wrote:
>
> +1 for worklog option
>
> Here's an example ticket from Arrow, where they seem to be using the
> same approach:
>
+1 for worklog option
Here's an example ticket from Arrow, where they seem to be using the
same approach:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-2583
On 05.08.2018 09:56, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>> I find this a bit annoying while subscribed to commits@,
>> especially since we created pr@
I'd be fine with putting this traffic through as 'worklog' - good call, Mick!
On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>> I find this a bit annoying while subscribed to commits@,
>> especially since we created pr@ for these kind of messages. Also I don't
>> really see any value in
> I find this a bit annoying while subscribed to commits@,
> especially since we created pr@ for these kind of messages. Also I don't
> really see any value in mirroring all github comments to the ticket.
I agree with you Stefan. It makes the jira tickets quite painful to read. And I
tend to
It is useful to have a historical record. However, it could definitely be
better (huge diffs are pointless).
Thanks,
Dinesh
On Monday, July 30, 2018, 1:27:26 AM PDT, Stefan Podkowinski
wrote:
Looks like we had some active PRs recently to discuss code changes in
detail on GitHub,
Hi,
I really like having it mirrored. I would not be in favor of eliminating
automated mirroring. What we are seeing is that removing the pain of commenting
in JIRA is encouraging people to converse more in finer detail. That's a good
thing.
I have also seen the pain of how various github
I agree this is a mess. I think we have previously taken the view that JIRA
should be the permanent record of discussion, and that as such the git
conversation should be duplicated there.
However, I think it would be better for JIRA to get a summary of important
discussions, by one of the
Looks like we had some active PRs recently to discuss code changes in
detail on GitHub, which I think is something we agreed is perfectly
fine, in addition to the usual Jira ticket.
What bugs me a bit is that for some reasons any comments on the PR would
be posted to the Jira ticket as well. I'm
18 matches
Mail list logo
