Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
Workflow should be: 1. Create JIRA or select JIRA from backlog 2. Mark JIRA as "In Progress" 3. Work on code and submit PR the PR needs to start with [MXNET-XXX] that way the JIRA has the latest updates from github 4. Once PR has been approved., commit the PR 5. Mark the Jira as Resolved and then Closed On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:44 AM, Chris Olivier wrote: > You should create the JIRA before you start work (long before the PR) so > that people know what's being worked on and don't overlap. Ideally, > anything people work on should have been in JIRA for some time before work > starts so that there is some sort of holistic view of the direction of the > project rather than the way it is now, where PR's just appear out of > nowhere. > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Xingjian SHI > wrote: > >> What's the expected workflow if we use JIRA? I'm not clear about that. >> Currently I'll 1) submit the PR, 2) describe what's done in the PR in >> detail and refer to the related Github issues, 3) create the JIRA item by >> copying the PR description, 4) change the title of the PR to >> [MXNET-JIRA_ID]ORIGINAL_TITLE. During the process I find step-3/4 are >> somehow unnecessary. >> >> >> Best, >> >> Xingjian >> >> ____________ >> From: Naveen Swamy >> Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 3:26 AM >> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by >> associating pull requests >> >> Whether to use Jira or not is a moot point now, I suggest lets discuss >> how >> to use Github/Jira effectively, to make it easy for contributors(new and >> veterans). Let us use it for 6 months or so and collect feedback, people >> who don't find it useful can start another VOTE. >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Chris Olivier >> wrote: >> >> > Oh my God, no... >> > >> > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Anirudh wrote: >> > >> > > There should be an easy way to translate all the existing github >> issues >> > > into work items in JIRA(Considering the work on labelling that is done >> > for >> > > github issues). >> > > Does the JIRA bot handle this ? >> > > >> > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Anyone can create a backlog item/JIRA ticket. >> > > > >> > > > Obvious cases might include: >> > > > >> > > > * Someone thinks of a task and (optionally) wants to develop it >> > > themselves, >> > > > so they create a backlog item and assign it to themself, putting it >> > into >> > > > "in progress" mode. >> > > > * Someone dreams up a large feature and wants to create an epic >> with 30 >> > > > subtasks, so they create the epic and its subtasks (grooming) >> > > > * Someone wants to just pick up a random pre-existing backlog item >> to >> > > work >> > > > on >> > > > >> > > > I do think that backlog items should be restricted to actual work >> items >> > > and >> > > > not general issue reporting, but I'm certainly open to how other >> Apache >> > > > projects like Spark do that. So far it seems like github issues do >> a >> > > > pretty good job of that. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Sheng Zha >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Good points on keeping a public backlog. Should we expect new >> > > > contributors >> > > > > to create such backlog items? Or who should own the >> responsibility of >> > > > > creating backlog items? >> > > > > >> > > > > - Sent by my thumb >> > > > > >> > > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Nan Zhu >> > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > just giving an example about Chris's opinion (how JIRA would >> help >> > for >> > > > > more >> > > > > > new users) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I can see Spark 2.4 is highly possible to include the nested >> column >> > > > > pruning >> > > > > > in parquet file from its JIRA (
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
How should we use Github issues if we do that? Currently it's supposed that issues are created before the PR. Xingjian From: Chris Olivier Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 3:44 AM To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests You should create the JIRA before you start work (long before the PR) so that people know what's being worked on and don't overlap. Ideally, anything people work on should have been in JIRA for some time before work starts so that there is some sort of holistic view of the direction of the project rather than the way it is now, where PR's just appear out of nowhere. On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Xingjian SHI wrote: > What's the expected workflow if we use JIRA? I'm not clear about that. > Currently I'll 1) submit the PR, 2) describe what's done in the PR in > detail and refer to the related Github issues, 3) create the JIRA item by > copying the PR description, 4) change the title of the PR to > [MXNET-JIRA_ID]ORIGINAL_TITLE. During the process I find step-3/4 are > somehow unnecessary. > > > Best, > > Xingjian > > > From: Naveen Swamy > Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 3:26 AM > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating > pull requests > > Whether to use Jira or not is a moot point now, I suggest lets discuss how > to use Github/Jira effectively, to make it easy for contributors(new and > veterans). Let us use it for 6 months or so and collect feedback, people > who don't find it useful can start another VOTE. > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Chris Olivier > wrote: > > > Oh my God, no... > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Anirudh wrote: > > > > > There should be an easy way to translate all the existing github issues > > > into work items in JIRA(Considering the work on labelling that is done > > for > > > github issues). > > > Does the JIRA bot handle this ? > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Anyone can create a backlog item/JIRA ticket. > > > > > > > > Obvious cases might include: > > > > > > > > * Someone thinks of a task and (optionally) wants to develop it > > > themselves, > > > > so they create a backlog item and assign it to themself, putting it > > into > > > > "in progress" mode. > > > > * Someone dreams up a large feature and wants to create an epic with > 30 > > > > subtasks, so they create the epic and its subtasks (grooming) > > > > * Someone wants to just pick up a random pre-existing backlog item to > > > work > > > > on > > > > > > > > I do think that backlog items should be restricted to actual work > items > > > and > > > > not general issue reporting, but I'm certainly open to how other > Apache > > > > projects like Spark do that. So far it seems like github issues do a > > > > pretty good job of that. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Sheng Zha > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Good points on keeping a public backlog. Should we expect new > > > > contributors > > > > > to create such backlog items? Or who should own the responsibility > of > > > > > creating backlog items? > > > > > > > > > > - Sent by my thumb > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Nan Zhu > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > just giving an example about Chris's opinion (how JIRA would help > > for > > > > > more > > > > > > new users) > > > > > > > > > > > > I can see Spark 2.4 is highly possible to include the nested > column > > > > > pruning > > > > > > in parquet file from its JIRA ( > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502) [SPARK-4502] Spark SQL reads unneccesary nested fields ...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502> issues.apache.org When reading a field of a nested column from Parquet, SparkSQL reads and assemble all the fields of that nested column. This is unnecessary, as Parquet supports fine ... > [SPARK-4502] Spark SQL reads unneccesary nested fields ...< > https://issues.apache.org/jira/brow
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
You should create the JIRA before you start work (long before the PR) so that people know what's being worked on and don't overlap. Ideally, anything people work on should have been in JIRA for some time before work starts so that there is some sort of holistic view of the direction of the project rather than the way it is now, where PR's just appear out of nowhere. On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Xingjian SHI wrote: > What's the expected workflow if we use JIRA? I'm not clear about that. > Currently I'll 1) submit the PR, 2) describe what's done in the PR in > detail and refer to the related Github issues, 3) create the JIRA item by > copying the PR description, 4) change the title of the PR to > [MXNET-JIRA_ID]ORIGINAL_TITLE. During the process I find step-3/4 are > somehow unnecessary. > > > Best, > > Xingjian > > > From: Naveen Swamy > Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 3:26 AM > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating > pull requests > > Whether to use Jira or not is a moot point now, I suggest lets discuss how > to use Github/Jira effectively, to make it easy for contributors(new and > veterans). Let us use it for 6 months or so and collect feedback, people > who don't find it useful can start another VOTE. > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Chris Olivier > wrote: > > > Oh my God, no... > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Anirudh wrote: > > > > > There should be an easy way to translate all the existing github issues > > > into work items in JIRA(Considering the work on labelling that is done > > for > > > github issues). > > > Does the JIRA bot handle this ? > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Anyone can create a backlog item/JIRA ticket. > > > > > > > > Obvious cases might include: > > > > > > > > * Someone thinks of a task and (optionally) wants to develop it > > > themselves, > > > > so they create a backlog item and assign it to themself, putting it > > into > > > > "in progress" mode. > > > > * Someone dreams up a large feature and wants to create an epic with > 30 > > > > subtasks, so they create the epic and its subtasks (grooming) > > > > * Someone wants to just pick up a random pre-existing backlog item to > > > work > > > > on > > > > > > > > I do think that backlog items should be restricted to actual work > items > > > and > > > > not general issue reporting, but I'm certainly open to how other > Apache > > > > projects like Spark do that. So far it seems like github issues do a > > > > pretty good job of that. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Sheng Zha > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Good points on keeping a public backlog. Should we expect new > > > > contributors > > > > > to create such backlog items? Or who should own the responsibility > of > > > > > creating backlog items? > > > > > > > > > > - Sent by my thumb > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Nan Zhu > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > just giving an example about Chris's opinion (how JIRA would help > > for > > > > > more > > > > > > new users) > > > > > > > > > > > > I can see Spark 2.4 is highly possible to include the nested > column > > > > > pruning > > > > > > in parquet file from its JIRA ( > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502) > [SPARK-4502] Spark SQL reads unneccesary nested fields ...< > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502> > issues.apache.org > When reading a field of a nested column from Parquet, SparkSQL reads and > assemble all the fields of that nested column. This is unnecessary, as > Parquet supports fine ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's hard for me to have any source to get the similar > expectation > > > for > > > > > MXNET > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > > Nan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
What's the expected workflow if we use JIRA? I'm not clear about that. Currently I'll 1) submit the PR, 2) describe what's done in the PR in detail and refer to the related Github issues, 3) create the JIRA item by copying the PR description, 4) change the title of the PR to [MXNET-JIRA_ID]ORIGINAL_TITLE. During the process I find step-3/4 are somehow unnecessary. Best, Xingjian From: Naveen Swamy Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 3:26 AM To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests Whether to use Jira or not is a moot point now, I suggest lets discuss how to use Github/Jira effectively, to make it easy for contributors(new and veterans). Let us use it for 6 months or so and collect feedback, people who don't find it useful can start another VOTE. On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Chris Olivier wrote: > Oh my God, no... > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Anirudh wrote: > > > There should be an easy way to translate all the existing github issues > > into work items in JIRA(Considering the work on labelling that is done > for > > github issues). > > Does the JIRA bot handle this ? > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier > > wrote: > > > > > Anyone can create a backlog item/JIRA ticket. > > > > > > Obvious cases might include: > > > > > > * Someone thinks of a task and (optionally) wants to develop it > > themselves, > > > so they create a backlog item and assign it to themself, putting it > into > > > "in progress" mode. > > > * Someone dreams up a large feature and wants to create an epic with 30 > > > subtasks, so they create the epic and its subtasks (grooming) > > > * Someone wants to just pick up a random pre-existing backlog item to > > work > > > on > > > > > > I do think that backlog items should be restricted to actual work items > > and > > > not general issue reporting, but I'm certainly open to how other Apache > > > projects like Spark do that. So far it seems like github issues do a > > > pretty good job of that. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Sheng Zha wrote: > > > > > > > Good points on keeping a public backlog. Should we expect new > > > contributors > > > > to create such backlog items? Or who should own the responsibility of > > > > creating backlog items? > > > > > > > > - Sent by my thumb > > > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Nan Zhu > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > just giving an example about Chris's opinion (how JIRA would help > for > > > > more > > > > > new users) > > > > > > > > > > I can see Spark 2.4 is highly possible to include the nested column > > > > pruning > > > > > in parquet file from its JIRA ( > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502) [SPARK-4502] Spark SQL reads unneccesary nested fields ...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502> issues.apache.org When reading a field of a nested column from Parquet, SparkSQL reads and assemble all the fields of that nested column. This is unnecessary, as Parquet supports fine ... > > > > > > > > > > it's hard for me to have any source to get the similar expectation > > for > > > > MXNET > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > Nan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Chris Olivier < > > cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Almost all Apache projects use JIRA. It's been proven to work in > > > > >> open-source. > > > > >> Having backlog/development process public hopefully will help > > > adoption. > > > > >> Right now, what new users? Adoption is very slow, so I think it's > > > hard > > > > to > > > > >> argue that the current way of doing things is effective. > > > > >> > > > > >>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Sheng Zha > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Cool. Feel free to propose a change to the PR template. > > > > >>> >
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
Whether to use Jira or not is a moot point now, I suggest lets discuss how to use Github/Jira effectively, to make it easy for contributors(new and veterans). Let us use it for 6 months or so and collect feedback, people who don't find it useful can start another VOTE. On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Chris Olivier wrote: > Oh my God, no... > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Anirudh wrote: > > > There should be an easy way to translate all the existing github issues > > into work items in JIRA(Considering the work on labelling that is done > for > > github issues). > > Does the JIRA bot handle this ? > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier > > wrote: > > > > > Anyone can create a backlog item/JIRA ticket. > > > > > > Obvious cases might include: > > > > > > * Someone thinks of a task and (optionally) wants to develop it > > themselves, > > > so they create a backlog item and assign it to themself, putting it > into > > > "in progress" mode. > > > * Someone dreams up a large feature and wants to create an epic with 30 > > > subtasks, so they create the epic and its subtasks (grooming) > > > * Someone wants to just pick up a random pre-existing backlog item to > > work > > > on > > > > > > I do think that backlog items should be restricted to actual work items > > and > > > not general issue reporting, but I'm certainly open to how other Apache > > > projects like Spark do that. So far it seems like github issues do a > > > pretty good job of that. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Sheng Zha wrote: > > > > > > > Good points on keeping a public backlog. Should we expect new > > > contributors > > > > to create such backlog items? Or who should own the responsibility of > > > > creating backlog items? > > > > > > > > - Sent by my thumb > > > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Nan Zhu > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > just giving an example about Chris's opinion (how JIRA would help > for > > > > more > > > > > new users) > > > > > > > > > > I can see Spark 2.4 is highly possible to include the nested column > > > > pruning > > > > > in parquet file from its JIRA ( > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502) > > > > > > > > > > it's hard for me to have any source to get the similar expectation > > for > > > > MXNET > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > Nan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Chris Olivier < > > cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Almost all Apache projects use JIRA. It's been proven to work in > > > > >> open-source. > > > > >> Having backlog/development process public hopefully will help > > > adoption. > > > > >> Right now, what new users? Adoption is very slow, so I think it's > > > hard > > > > to > > > > >> argue that the current way of doing things is effective. > > > > >> > > > > >>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Sheng Zha > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Cool. Feel free to propose a change to the PR template. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> How would JIRA be less daunting to new users? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> -sz > > > > >>> > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Chris Olivier < > cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > My $0.02 about the PR template. > > > > > > > > I think it's a good idea. I think (just my opinion) is that the > > > > >> adoption > > > > is low because it started out too big and daunting. It may get > > more > > > > adoption if we started a little smaller -- with maybe two > > > checkboxes" > > > > >> and > > > > also didn't have a line at the top stating "Description", > because > > > that > > > > >>> feel > > > > skind of awkward and github inserts extended label info above it > > > > >>> sometimes. > > > > > > > > Just an idea. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Sheng Zha > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The PR template is designed for that and its poor adoption is > > > causing > > > > >>> the > > > > > same issue of missing information in PRs. My concern of using > > JIRA > > > is > > > > >>> that > > > > > more overhead would deter contribution and worsen the quality > of > > > > > description. > > > > > > > > > > -sz > > > > > > > > > >> On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Nan Zhu > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> +1 on both suggestions > > > > >> > > > > >> a bit concern is on the quality of JIRA which is created > > > > >> automatically > > > > >> > > > > >> I can see a lot of PRs are not described comprehensively, if > we > > > just > > > > >>> post > > > > >> what in description to JIRA, it's error-propagating > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> but the quality of JIRA is a big topic worth more discussions > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Marco de Abreu < > > > > > marco.g.ab...@goog
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
There are a lot of issues out there which can be translated to work items(for e.g. labels such as "Call For Contribution", "Feature" and "Bugs") There should be an easy way to translate these to work items in JIRA. On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Chris Olivier wrote: > Oh my God, no... > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Anirudh wrote: > > > There should be an easy way to translate all the existing github issues > > into work items in JIRA(Considering the work on labelling that is done > for > > github issues). > > Does the JIRA bot handle this ? > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier > > wrote: > > > > > Anyone can create a backlog item/JIRA ticket. > > > > > > Obvious cases might include: > > > > > > * Someone thinks of a task and (optionally) wants to develop it > > themselves, > > > so they create a backlog item and assign it to themself, putting it > into > > > "in progress" mode. > > > * Someone dreams up a large feature and wants to create an epic with 30 > > > subtasks, so they create the epic and its subtasks (grooming) > > > * Someone wants to just pick up a random pre-existing backlog item to > > work > > > on > > > > > > I do think that backlog items should be restricted to actual work items > > and > > > not general issue reporting, but I'm certainly open to how other Apache > > > projects like Spark do that. So far it seems like github issues do a > > > pretty good job of that. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Sheng Zha wrote: > > > > > > > Good points on keeping a public backlog. Should we expect new > > > contributors > > > > to create such backlog items? Or who should own the responsibility of > > > > creating backlog items? > > > > > > > > - Sent by my thumb > > > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Nan Zhu > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > just giving an example about Chris's opinion (how JIRA would help > for > > > > more > > > > > new users) > > > > > > > > > > I can see Spark 2.4 is highly possible to include the nested column > > > > pruning > > > > > in parquet file from its JIRA ( > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502) > > > > > > > > > > it's hard for me to have any source to get the similar expectation > > for > > > > MXNET > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > Nan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Chris Olivier < > > cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Almost all Apache projects use JIRA. It's been proven to work in > > > > >> open-source. > > > > >> Having backlog/development process public hopefully will help > > > adoption. > > > > >> Right now, what new users? Adoption is very slow, so I think it's > > > hard > > > > to > > > > >> argue that the current way of doing things is effective. > > > > >> > > > > >>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Sheng Zha > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Cool. Feel free to propose a change to the PR template. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> How would JIRA be less daunting to new users? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> -sz > > > > >>> > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Chris Olivier < > cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > My $0.02 about the PR template. > > > > > > > > I think it's a good idea. I think (just my opinion) is that the > > > > >> adoption > > > > is low because it started out too big and daunting. It may get > > more > > > > adoption if we started a little smaller -- with maybe two > > > checkboxes" > > > > >> and > > > > also didn't have a line at the top stating "Description", > because > > > that > > > > >>> feel > > > > skind of awkward and github inserts extended label info above it > > > > >>> sometimes. > > > > > > > > Just an idea. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Sheng Zha > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The PR template is designed for that and its poor adoption is > > > causing > > > > >>> the > > > > > same issue of missing information in PRs. My concern of using > > JIRA > > > is > > > > >>> that > > > > > more overhead would deter contribution and worsen the quality > of > > > > > description. > > > > > > > > > > -sz > > > > > > > > > >> On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Nan Zhu > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> +1 on both suggestions > > > > >> > > > > >> a bit concern is on the quality of JIRA which is created > > > > >> automatically > > > > >> > > > > >> I can see a lot of PRs are not described comprehensively, if > we > > > just > > > > >>> post > > > > >> what in description to JIRA, it's error-propagating > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> but the quality of JIRA is a big topic worth more discussions > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Marco de Abreu < > > > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >> > > > >
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
We can also consider to give a special label for all the issues that are "working items". There are lots of efforts spent on assigning the correct label to Github issues. We can then easily select the issues we are interested in, e.g, https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22Feature+request%22 Xingjian From: Naveen Swamy Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 3:08 AM To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests I don't think we should transfer all Github issues to Jira that will make Jira issues unmanageable and pretty useless, also not all issues are being worked on or will be worked on. I like the idea of using Jira as a backlog, so contributors/committers create Jira tasks/projects based on what they are working on. On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Anirudh wrote: > There should be an easy way to translate all the existing github issues > into work items in JIRA(Considering the work on labelling that is done for > github issues). > Does the JIRA bot handle this ? > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier > wrote: > > > Anyone can create a backlog item/JIRA ticket. > > > > Obvious cases might include: > > > > * Someone thinks of a task and (optionally) wants to develop it > themselves, > > so they create a backlog item and assign it to themself, putting it into > > "in progress" mode. > > * Someone dreams up a large feature and wants to create an epic with 30 > > subtasks, so they create the epic and its subtasks (grooming) > > * Someone wants to just pick up a random pre-existing backlog item to > work > > on > > > > I do think that backlog items should be restricted to actual work items > and > > not general issue reporting, but I'm certainly open to how other Apache > > projects like Spark do that. So far it seems like github issues do a > > pretty good job of that. > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Sheng Zha wrote: > > > > > Good points on keeping a public backlog. Should we expect new > > contributors > > > to create such backlog items? Or who should own the responsibility of > > > creating backlog items? > > > > > > - Sent by my thumb > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Nan Zhu wrote: > > > > > > > > just giving an example about Chris's opinion (how JIRA would help for > > > more > > > > new users) > > > > > > > > I can see Spark 2.4 is highly possible to include the nested column > > > pruning > > > > in parquet file from its JIRA ( > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502) [SPARK-4502] Spark SQL reads unneccesary nested fields ...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502> issues.apache.org When reading a field of a nested column from Parquet, SparkSQL reads and assemble all the fields of that nested column. This is unnecessary, as Parquet supports fine ... > > > > > > > > it's hard for me to have any source to get the similar expectation > for > > > MXNET > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Nan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Chris Olivier < > cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Almost all Apache projects use JIRA. It's been proven to work in > > > >> open-source. > > > >> Having backlog/development process public hopefully will help > > adoption. > > > >> Right now, what new users? Adoption is very slow, so I think it's > > hard > > > to > > > >> argue that the current way of doing things is effective. > > > >> > > > >>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Sheng Zha > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Cool. Feel free to propose a change to the PR template. > > > >>> > > > >>> How would JIRA be less daunting to new users? > > > >>> > > > >>> -sz > > > >>> > > > >>>> On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Chris Olivier > > > >> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> My $0.02 about the PR template. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I think it's a good idea. I think (just my opinion) is that the > &g
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
Oh my God, no... On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Anirudh wrote: > There should be an easy way to translate all the existing github issues > into work items in JIRA(Considering the work on labelling that is done for > github issues). > Does the JIRA bot handle this ? > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier > wrote: > > > Anyone can create a backlog item/JIRA ticket. > > > > Obvious cases might include: > > > > * Someone thinks of a task and (optionally) wants to develop it > themselves, > > so they create a backlog item and assign it to themself, putting it into > > "in progress" mode. > > * Someone dreams up a large feature and wants to create an epic with 30 > > subtasks, so they create the epic and its subtasks (grooming) > > * Someone wants to just pick up a random pre-existing backlog item to > work > > on > > > > I do think that backlog items should be restricted to actual work items > and > > not general issue reporting, but I'm certainly open to how other Apache > > projects like Spark do that. So far it seems like github issues do a > > pretty good job of that. > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Sheng Zha wrote: > > > > > Good points on keeping a public backlog. Should we expect new > > contributors > > > to create such backlog items? Or who should own the responsibility of > > > creating backlog items? > > > > > > - Sent by my thumb > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Nan Zhu wrote: > > > > > > > > just giving an example about Chris's opinion (how JIRA would help for > > > more > > > > new users) > > > > > > > > I can see Spark 2.4 is highly possible to include the nested column > > > pruning > > > > in parquet file from its JIRA ( > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502) > > > > > > > > it's hard for me to have any source to get the similar expectation > for > > > MXNET > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Nan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Chris Olivier < > cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Almost all Apache projects use JIRA. It's been proven to work in > > > >> open-source. > > > >> Having backlog/development process public hopefully will help > > adoption. > > > >> Right now, what new users? Adoption is very slow, so I think it's > > hard > > > to > > > >> argue that the current way of doing things is effective. > > > >> > > > >>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Sheng Zha > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Cool. Feel free to propose a change to the PR template. > > > >>> > > > >>> How would JIRA be less daunting to new users? > > > >>> > > > >>> -sz > > > >>> > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Chris Olivier > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > My $0.02 about the PR template. > > > > > > I think it's a good idea. I think (just my opinion) is that the > > > >> adoption > > > is low because it started out too big and daunting. It may get > more > > > adoption if we started a little smaller -- with maybe two > > checkboxes" > > > >> and > > > also didn't have a line at the top stating "Description", because > > that > > > >>> feel > > > skind of awkward and github inserts extended label info above it > > > >>> sometimes. > > > > > > Just an idea. > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Sheng Zha > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > The PR template is designed for that and its poor adoption is > > causing > > > >>> the > > > > same issue of missing information in PRs. My concern of using > JIRA > > is > > > >>> that > > > > more overhead would deter contribution and worsen the quality of > > > > description. > > > > > > > > -sz > > > > > > > >> On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Nan Zhu > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> +1 on both suggestions > > > >> > > > >> a bit concern is on the quality of JIRA which is created > > > >> automatically > > > >> > > > >> I can see a lot of PRs are not described comprehensively, if we > > just > > > >>> post > > > >> what in description to JIRA, it's error-propagating > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> but the quality of JIRA is a big topic worth more discussions > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Marco de Abreu < > > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > > > >>> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Would it be possible to automatically create JIRA tickets when > a > > > >>> GitHub > > > >>> issue is being created? We could then mirror all comments the > > same > > > >> way > > > > it's > > > >>> happening in https://issues.apache.org/ > > jira/projects/MXNET/issues/ > > > > MXNET-42 > > > >>> but make sure that the bot works in both ways. A comment on > > GitHub > > > > would be > > > >>> copied to JIRA and a JIRA comment to GitHub. I think this would > > be > > > >>> good > > > > as > > > >>> a first step to start integration. > > > >>> >
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
To summarize: - JIRA might be more maintainer friendly(have more features for tracking progress etc.) - Github issues are more community friendly (it has been the way most people contribute, and have lower bar of entry). Tianqi On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Xingjian SHI wrote: > There is no issue page in Spark (https://github.com/apache/spark) and > they rely solely on JIRA to track the working items. This is different from > what we are doing now. MXNet associate PRs to working items by linking them > to the Github issues, e.g, https://github.com/apache/ > incubator-mxnet/pull/10029 links to https://github.com/apache/ > incubator-mxnet/issues/9950. If we rely on JIRA in the future, we need to > emphasize the difference between Github issues and JIRA items or disable > Github/issues and forces users to use JIRA. > > Personally, I think these two have similar functionalities and why don't > we directly use Github issues? It's much easier for users as they do not > need to create another account. Their contributions to MXNet (including > creating issues) would also be directly displayed in the Github homepage, > which encourages them to do more for the community. > > Best, > Xingjian > > > > From: Nan Zhu > Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 2:14 AM > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating > pull requests > > just giving an example about Chris's opinion (how JIRA would help for more > new users) > > I can see Spark 2.4 is highly possible to include the nested column pruning > in parquet file from its JIRA ( > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502) > [SPARK-4502] Spark SQL reads unneccesary nested fields ...< > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502> > issues.apache.org > When reading a field of a nested column from Parquet, SparkSQL reads and > assemble all the fields of that nested column. This is unnecessary, as > Parquet supports fine ... > > > > > it's hard for me to have any source to get the similar expectation for > MXNET > > Best, > > Nan > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Chris Olivier > wrote: > > > Almost all Apache projects use JIRA. It's been proven to work in > > open-source. > > Having backlog/development process public hopefully will help adoption. > > Right now, what new users? Adoption is very slow, so I think it's hard > to > > argue that the current way of doing things is effective. > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Sheng Zha wrote: > > > > > Cool. Feel free to propose a change to the PR template. > > > > > > How would JIRA be less daunting to new users? > > > > > > -sz > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Chris Olivier > > wrote: > > > > > > > > My $0.02 about the PR template. > > > > > > > > I think it's a good idea. I think (just my opinion) is that the > > adoption > > > > is low because it started out too big and daunting. It may get more > > > > adoption if we started a little smaller -- with maybe two checkboxes" > > and > > > > also didn't have a line at the top stating "Description", because > that > > > feel > > > > skind of awkward and github inserts extended label info above it > > > sometimes. > > > > > > > > Just an idea. > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Sheng Zha > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> The PR template is designed for that and its poor adoption is > causing > > > the > > > >> same issue of missing information in PRs. My concern of using JIRA > is > > > that > > > >> more overhead would deter contribution and worsen the quality of > > > >> description. > > > >> > > > >> -sz > > > >> > > > >>> On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Nan Zhu > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> +1 on both suggestions > > > >>> > > > >>> a bit concern is on the quality of JIRA which is created > > automatically > > > >>> > > > >>> I can see a lot of PRs are not described comprehensively, if we > just > > > post > > > >>> what in description to JIRA, it's error-propagating > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> but the quality of JIRA is a big topic worth more d
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
I don't think we should transfer all Github issues to Jira that will make Jira issues unmanageable and pretty useless, also not all issues are being worked on or will be worked on. I like the idea of using Jira as a backlog, so contributors/committers create Jira tasks/projects based on what they are working on. On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Anirudh wrote: > There should be an easy way to translate all the existing github issues > into work items in JIRA(Considering the work on labelling that is done for > github issues). > Does the JIRA bot handle this ? > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier > wrote: > > > Anyone can create a backlog item/JIRA ticket. > > > > Obvious cases might include: > > > > * Someone thinks of a task and (optionally) wants to develop it > themselves, > > so they create a backlog item and assign it to themself, putting it into > > "in progress" mode. > > * Someone dreams up a large feature and wants to create an epic with 30 > > subtasks, so they create the epic and its subtasks (grooming) > > * Someone wants to just pick up a random pre-existing backlog item to > work > > on > > > > I do think that backlog items should be restricted to actual work items > and > > not general issue reporting, but I'm certainly open to how other Apache > > projects like Spark do that. So far it seems like github issues do a > > pretty good job of that. > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Sheng Zha wrote: > > > > > Good points on keeping a public backlog. Should we expect new > > contributors > > > to create such backlog items? Or who should own the responsibility of > > > creating backlog items? > > > > > > - Sent by my thumb > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Nan Zhu wrote: > > > > > > > > just giving an example about Chris's opinion (how JIRA would help for > > > more > > > > new users) > > > > > > > > I can see Spark 2.4 is highly possible to include the nested column > > > pruning > > > > in parquet file from its JIRA ( > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502) > > > > > > > > it's hard for me to have any source to get the similar expectation > for > > > MXNET > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Nan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Chris Olivier < > cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Almost all Apache projects use JIRA. It's been proven to work in > > > >> open-source. > > > >> Having backlog/development process public hopefully will help > > adoption. > > > >> Right now, what new users? Adoption is very slow, so I think it's > > hard > > > to > > > >> argue that the current way of doing things is effective. > > > >> > > > >>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Sheng Zha > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Cool. Feel free to propose a change to the PR template. > > > >>> > > > >>> How would JIRA be less daunting to new users? > > > >>> > > > >>> -sz > > > >>> > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Chris Olivier > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > My $0.02 about the PR template. > > > > > > I think it's a good idea. I think (just my opinion) is that the > > > >> adoption > > > is low because it started out too big and daunting. It may get > more > > > adoption if we started a little smaller -- with maybe two > > checkboxes" > > > >> and > > > also didn't have a line at the top stating "Description", because > > that > > > >>> feel > > > skind of awkward and github inserts extended label info above it > > > >>> sometimes. > > > > > > Just an idea. > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Sheng Zha > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > The PR template is designed for that and its poor adoption is > > causing > > > >>> the > > > > same issue of missing information in PRs. My concern of using > JIRA > > is > > > >>> that > > > > more overhead would deter contribution and worsen the quality of > > > > description. > > > > > > > > -sz > > > > > > > >> On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Nan Zhu > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> +1 on both suggestions > > > >> > > > >> a bit concern is on the quality of JIRA which is created > > > >> automatically > > > >> > > > >> I can see a lot of PRs are not described comprehensively, if we > > just > > > >>> post > > > >> what in description to JIRA, it's error-propagating > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> but the quality of JIRA is a big topic worth more discussions > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Marco de Abreu < > > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > > > >>> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Would it be possible to automatically create JIRA tickets when > a > > > >>> GitHub > > > >>> issue is being created? We could then mirror all comments the > > same > > > >> way > > > > it's > > > >>> happening in https://issues.apache.org/ > > jira/projects/MXNET/issues/ > > >
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
There is no issue page in Spark (https://github.com/apache/spark) and they rely solely on JIRA to track the working items. This is different from what we are doing now. MXNet associate PRs to working items by linking them to the Github issues, e.g, https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/10029 links to https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/9950. If we rely on JIRA in the future, we need to emphasize the difference between Github issues and JIRA items or disable Github/issues and forces users to use JIRA. Personally, I think these two have similar functionalities and why don't we directly use Github issues? It's much easier for users as they do not need to create another account. Their contributions to MXNet (including creating issues) would also be directly displayed in the Github homepage, which encourages them to do more for the community. Best, Xingjian From: Nan Zhu Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 2:14 AM To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests just giving an example about Chris's opinion (how JIRA would help for more new users) I can see Spark 2.4 is highly possible to include the nested column pruning in parquet file from its JIRA ( https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502) [SPARK-4502] Spark SQL reads unneccesary nested fields ...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502> issues.apache.org When reading a field of a nested column from Parquet, SparkSQL reads and assemble all the fields of that nested column. This is unnecessary, as Parquet supports fine ... it's hard for me to have any source to get the similar expectation for MXNET Best, Nan On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Chris Olivier wrote: > Almost all Apache projects use JIRA. It's been proven to work in > open-source. > Having backlog/development process public hopefully will help adoption. > Right now, what new users? Adoption is very slow, so I think it's hard to > argue that the current way of doing things is effective. > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Sheng Zha wrote: > > > Cool. Feel free to propose a change to the PR template. > > > > How would JIRA be less daunting to new users? > > > > -sz > > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Chris Olivier > wrote: > > > > > > My $0.02 about the PR template. > > > > > > I think it's a good idea. I think (just my opinion) is that the > adoption > > > is low because it started out too big and daunting. It may get more > > > adoption if we started a little smaller -- with maybe two checkboxes" > and > > > also didn't have a line at the top stating "Description", because that > > feel > > > skind of awkward and github inserts extended label info above it > > sometimes. > > > > > > Just an idea. > > > > > >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Sheng Zha wrote: > > >> > > >> The PR template is designed for that and its poor adoption is causing > > the > > >> same issue of missing information in PRs. My concern of using JIRA is > > that > > >> more overhead would deter contribution and worsen the quality of > > >> description. > > >> > > >> -sz > > >> > > >>> On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Nan Zhu wrote: > > >>> > > >>> +1 on both suggestions > > >>> > > >>> a bit concern is on the quality of JIRA which is created > automatically > > >>> > > >>> I can see a lot of PRs are not described comprehensively, if we just > > post > > >>> what in description to JIRA, it's error-propagating > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> but the quality of JIRA is a big topic worth more discussions > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Marco de Abreu < > > >> marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > > >>>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Would it be possible to automatically create JIRA tickets when a > > GitHub > > >>>> issue is being created? We could then mirror all comments the same > way > > >> it's > > >>>> happening in https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MXNET/issues/ > > >> MXNET-42 > > >>>> but make sure that the bot works in both ways. A comment on GitHub > > >> would be > > >>>> copied to JIRA and a JIRA comment to GitHub. I think this would be >
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
There should be an easy way to translate all the existing github issues into work items in JIRA(Considering the work on labelling that is done for github issues). Does the JIRA bot handle this ? On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier wrote: > Anyone can create a backlog item/JIRA ticket. > > Obvious cases might include: > > * Someone thinks of a task and (optionally) wants to develop it themselves, > so they create a backlog item and assign it to themself, putting it into > "in progress" mode. > * Someone dreams up a large feature and wants to create an epic with 30 > subtasks, so they create the epic and its subtasks (grooming) > * Someone wants to just pick up a random pre-existing backlog item to work > on > > I do think that backlog items should be restricted to actual work items and > not general issue reporting, but I'm certainly open to how other Apache > projects like Spark do that. So far it seems like github issues do a > pretty good job of that. > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Sheng Zha wrote: > > > Good points on keeping a public backlog. Should we expect new > contributors > > to create such backlog items? Or who should own the responsibility of > > creating backlog items? > > > > - Sent by my thumb > > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Nan Zhu wrote: > > > > > > just giving an example about Chris's opinion (how JIRA would help for > > more > > > new users) > > > > > > I can see Spark 2.4 is highly possible to include the nested column > > pruning > > > in parquet file from its JIRA ( > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502) > > > > > > it's hard for me to have any source to get the similar expectation for > > MXNET > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Nan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Chris Olivier > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Almost all Apache projects use JIRA. It's been proven to work in > > >> open-source. > > >> Having backlog/development process public hopefully will help > adoption. > > >> Right now, what new users? Adoption is very slow, so I think it's > hard > > to > > >> argue that the current way of doing things is effective. > > >> > > >>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Sheng Zha > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Cool. Feel free to propose a change to the PR template. > > >>> > > >>> How would JIRA be less daunting to new users? > > >>> > > >>> -sz > > >>> > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Chris Olivier > > >> wrote: > > > > My $0.02 about the PR template. > > > > I think it's a good idea. I think (just my opinion) is that the > > >> adoption > > is low because it started out too big and daunting. It may get more > > adoption if we started a little smaller -- with maybe two > checkboxes" > > >> and > > also didn't have a line at the top stating "Description", because > that > > >>> feel > > skind of awkward and github inserts extended label info above it > > >>> sometimes. > > > > Just an idea. > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Sheng Zha > > wrote: > > > > > > The PR template is designed for that and its poor adoption is > causing > > >>> the > > > same issue of missing information in PRs. My concern of using JIRA > is > > >>> that > > > more overhead would deter contribution and worsen the quality of > > > description. > > > > > > -sz > > > > > >> On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Nan Zhu > wrote: > > >> > > >> +1 on both suggestions > > >> > > >> a bit concern is on the quality of JIRA which is created > > >> automatically > > >> > > >> I can see a lot of PRs are not described comprehensively, if we > just > > >>> post > > >> what in description to JIRA, it's error-propagating > > >> > > >> > > >> but the quality of JIRA is a big topic worth more discussions > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Marco de Abreu < > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > > >>> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Would it be possible to automatically create JIRA tickets when a > > >>> GitHub > > >>> issue is being created? We could then mirror all comments the > same > > >> way > > > it's > > >>> happening in https://issues.apache.org/ > jira/projects/MXNET/issues/ > > > MXNET-42 > > >>> but make sure that the bot works in both ways. A comment on > GitHub > > > would be > > >>> copied to JIRA and a JIRA comment to GitHub. I think this would > be > > >>> good > > > as > > >>> a first step to start integration. > > >>> > > >>> -Marco > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:08 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > >>> marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > > wrote: > > >>> > > I also see this as a big advantage in terms of transparency. I > > > personally > > will try to move away from any company internal issue trackers > > >>> (except > > >>> for > > confidential cases) and ins
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
Anyone can create a backlog item/JIRA ticket. Obvious cases might include: * Someone thinks of a task and (optionally) wants to develop it themselves, so they create a backlog item and assign it to themself, putting it into "in progress" mode. * Someone dreams up a large feature and wants to create an epic with 30 subtasks, so they create the epic and its subtasks (grooming) * Someone wants to just pick up a random pre-existing backlog item to work on I do think that backlog items should be restricted to actual work items and not general issue reporting, but I'm certainly open to how other Apache projects like Spark do that. So far it seems like github issues do a pretty good job of that. On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Sheng Zha wrote: > Good points on keeping a public backlog. Should we expect new contributors > to create such backlog items? Or who should own the responsibility of > creating backlog items? > > - Sent by my thumb > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Nan Zhu wrote: > > > > just giving an example about Chris's opinion (how JIRA would help for > more > > new users) > > > > I can see Spark 2.4 is highly possible to include the nested column > pruning > > in parquet file from its JIRA ( > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502) > > > > it's hard for me to have any source to get the similar expectation for > MXNET > > > > Best, > > > > Nan > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Chris Olivier > > wrote: > > > >> Almost all Apache projects use JIRA. It's been proven to work in > >> open-source. > >> Having backlog/development process public hopefully will help adoption. > >> Right now, what new users? Adoption is very slow, so I think it's hard > to > >> argue that the current way of doing things is effective. > >> > >>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Sheng Zha wrote: > >>> > >>> Cool. Feel free to propose a change to the PR template. > >>> > >>> How would JIRA be less daunting to new users? > >>> > >>> -sz > >>> > On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Chris Olivier > >> wrote: > > My $0.02 about the PR template. > > I think it's a good idea. I think (just my opinion) is that the > >> adoption > is low because it started out too big and daunting. It may get more > adoption if we started a little smaller -- with maybe two checkboxes" > >> and > also didn't have a line at the top stating "Description", because that > >>> feel > skind of awkward and github inserts extended label info above it > >>> sometimes. > > Just an idea. > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Sheng Zha > wrote: > > > > The PR template is designed for that and its poor adoption is causing > >>> the > > same issue of missing information in PRs. My concern of using JIRA is > >>> that > > more overhead would deter contribution and worsen the quality of > > description. > > > > -sz > > > >> On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Nan Zhu wrote: > >> > >> +1 on both suggestions > >> > >> a bit concern is on the quality of JIRA which is created > >> automatically > >> > >> I can see a lot of PRs are not described comprehensively, if we just > >>> post > >> what in description to JIRA, it's error-propagating > >> > >> > >> but the quality of JIRA is a big topic worth more discussions > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Marco de Abreu < > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > >>> wrote: > >> > >>> Would it be possible to automatically create JIRA tickets when a > >>> GitHub > >>> issue is being created? We could then mirror all comments the same > >> way > > it's > >>> happening in https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MXNET/issues/ > > MXNET-42 > >>> but make sure that the bot works in both ways. A comment on GitHub > > would be > >>> copied to JIRA and a JIRA comment to GitHub. I think this would be > >>> good > > as > >>> a first step to start integration. > >>> > >>> -Marco > >>> > >>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:08 PM, Marco de Abreu < > >>> marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > wrote: > >>> > I also see this as a big advantage in terms of transparency. I > > personally > will try to move away from any company internal issue trackers > >>> (except > >>> for > confidential cases) and instead work on Jira that is being managed > >> by > > the > community. This allows everybody to see what is being worked on > and > > gives > them the possibility to chime with ideas or suggestions. > > In my opinion, this obsoletes TT and SIM to a big extent. It's up > >> to > > you > if you maintain multiple issue trackers or stick to one. If > anybody > > has a > (non-confidential) issue that's related to my work on CI, I ask > >> them > >>> to > create a GitHub issue inst
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
Good points on keeping a public backlog. Should we expect new contributors to create such backlog items? Or who should own the responsibility of creating backlog items? - Sent by my thumb > On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Nan Zhu wrote: > > just giving an example about Chris's opinion (how JIRA would help for more > new users) > > I can see Spark 2.4 is highly possible to include the nested column pruning > in parquet file from its JIRA ( > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502) > > it's hard for me to have any source to get the similar expectation for MXNET > > Best, > > Nan > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Chris Olivier > wrote: > >> Almost all Apache projects use JIRA. It's been proven to work in >> open-source. >> Having backlog/development process public hopefully will help adoption. >> Right now, what new users? Adoption is very slow, so I think it's hard to >> argue that the current way of doing things is effective. >> >>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Sheng Zha wrote: >>> >>> Cool. Feel free to propose a change to the PR template. >>> >>> How would JIRA be less daunting to new users? >>> >>> -sz >>> On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Chris Olivier >> wrote: My $0.02 about the PR template. I think it's a good idea. I think (just my opinion) is that the >> adoption is low because it started out too big and daunting. It may get more adoption if we started a little smaller -- with maybe two checkboxes" >> and also didn't have a line at the top stating "Description", because that >>> feel skind of awkward and github inserts extended label info above it >>> sometimes. Just an idea. > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Sheng Zha wrote: > > The PR template is designed for that and its poor adoption is causing >>> the > same issue of missing information in PRs. My concern of using JIRA is >>> that > more overhead would deter contribution and worsen the quality of > description. > > -sz > >> On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Nan Zhu wrote: >> >> +1 on both suggestions >> >> a bit concern is on the quality of JIRA which is created >> automatically >> >> I can see a lot of PRs are not described comprehensively, if we just >>> post >> what in description to JIRA, it's error-propagating >> >> >> but the quality of JIRA is a big topic worth more discussions >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Marco de Abreu < > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com >>> wrote: >> >>> Would it be possible to automatically create JIRA tickets when a >>> GitHub >>> issue is being created? We could then mirror all comments the same >> way > it's >>> happening in https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MXNET/issues/ > MXNET-42 >>> but make sure that the bot works in both ways. A comment on GitHub > would be >>> copied to JIRA and a JIRA comment to GitHub. I think this would be >>> good > as >>> a first step to start integration. >>> >>> -Marco >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:08 PM, Marco de Abreu < >>> marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com wrote: >>> I also see this as a big advantage in terms of transparency. I > personally will try to move away from any company internal issue trackers >>> (except >>> for confidential cases) and instead work on Jira that is being managed >> by > the community. This allows everybody to see what is being worked on and > gives them the possibility to chime with ideas or suggestions. In my opinion, this obsoletes TT and SIM to a big extent. It's up >> to > you if you maintain multiple issue trackers or stick to one. If anybody > has a (non-confidential) issue that's related to my work on CI, I ask >> them >>> to create a GitHub issue instead of a company internal ticket - I >> invite everybody to do the same. MXNet is an open source project and moving away from company >> internal trackers towards community driven ones is the next logical step in >> my opinion. At the moment, everybody is working on their own and it's >>> hard >>> to see for external people (or even developer who are not part of the >>> same team) what we're actually working on. -Marco > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Naveen Swamy > wrote: > > I am +1 for using JIRA. Managing bigger projects within MXNet on >>> JIRA > brings openness to the project. MXNet Users and the contributors >>> also >>> get > a > sense of where the project is heading. > Bigger Tasks can be divided into sub-tasks which contributors can >>> pick >>> up > small tasks based on their expertise on and c
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
just giving an example about Chris's opinion (how JIRA would help for more new users) I can see Spark 2.4 is highly possible to include the nested column pruning in parquet file from its JIRA ( https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4502) it's hard for me to have any source to get the similar expectation for MXNET Best, Nan On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Chris Olivier wrote: > Almost all Apache projects use JIRA. It's been proven to work in > open-source. > Having backlog/development process public hopefully will help adoption. > Right now, what new users? Adoption is very slow, so I think it's hard to > argue that the current way of doing things is effective. > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Sheng Zha wrote: > > > Cool. Feel free to propose a change to the PR template. > > > > How would JIRA be less daunting to new users? > > > > -sz > > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Chris Olivier > wrote: > > > > > > My $0.02 about the PR template. > > > > > > I think it's a good idea. I think (just my opinion) is that the > adoption > > > is low because it started out too big and daunting. It may get more > > > adoption if we started a little smaller -- with maybe two checkboxes" > and > > > also didn't have a line at the top stating "Description", because that > > feel > > > skind of awkward and github inserts extended label info above it > > sometimes. > > > > > > Just an idea. > > > > > >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Sheng Zha wrote: > > >> > > >> The PR template is designed for that and its poor adoption is causing > > the > > >> same issue of missing information in PRs. My concern of using JIRA is > > that > > >> more overhead would deter contribution and worsen the quality of > > >> description. > > >> > > >> -sz > > >> > > >>> On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Nan Zhu wrote: > > >>> > > >>> +1 on both suggestions > > >>> > > >>> a bit concern is on the quality of JIRA which is created > automatically > > >>> > > >>> I can see a lot of PRs are not described comprehensively, if we just > > post > > >>> what in description to JIRA, it's error-propagating > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> but the quality of JIRA is a big topic worth more discussions > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Marco de Abreu < > > >> marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > > wrote: > > >>> > > Would it be possible to automatically create JIRA tickets when a > > GitHub > > issue is being created? We could then mirror all comments the same > way > > >> it's > > happening in https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MXNET/issues/ > > >> MXNET-42 > > but make sure that the bot works in both ways. A comment on GitHub > > >> would be > > copied to JIRA and a JIRA comment to GitHub. I think this would be > > good > > >> as > > a first step to start integration. > > > > -Marco > > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:08 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > I also see this as a big advantage in terms of transparency. I > > >> personally > > > will try to move away from any company internal issue trackers > > (except > > for > > > confidential cases) and instead work on Jira that is being managed > by > > >> the > > > community. This allows everybody to see what is being worked on and > > >> gives > > > them the possibility to chime with ideas or suggestions. > > > > > > In my opinion, this obsoletes TT and SIM to a big extent. It's up > to > > >> you > > > if you maintain multiple issue trackers or stick to one. If anybody > > >> has a > > > (non-confidential) issue that's related to my work on CI, I ask > them > > to > > > create a GitHub issue instead of a company internal ticket - I > invite > > > everybody to do the same. > > > > > > MXNet is an open source project and moving away from company > internal > > > trackers towards community driven ones is the next logical step in > my > > > opinion. At the moment, everybody is working on their own and it's > > hard > > to > > > see for external people (or even developer who are not part of the > > same > > > team) what we're actually working on. > > > > > > -Marco > > > > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Naveen Swamy > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> I am +1 for using JIRA. Managing bigger projects within MXNet on > > JIRA > > >> brings openness to the project. MXNet Users and the contributors > > also > > get > > >> a > > >> sense of where the project is heading. > > >> Bigger Tasks can be divided into sub-tasks which contributors can > > pick > > up > > >> small tasks based on their expertise on and contribute > > independently. > > >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier < > > cjolivie...@gmail.com > > >>> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> The vote was discussed on private@ before the vote on dev@, and
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
Almost all Apache projects use JIRA. It's been proven to work in open-source. Having backlog/development process public hopefully will help adoption. Right now, what new users? Adoption is very slow, so I think it's hard to argue that the current way of doing things is effective. On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Sheng Zha wrote: > Cool. Feel free to propose a change to the PR template. > > How would JIRA be less daunting to new users? > > -sz > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Chris Olivier wrote: > > > > My $0.02 about the PR template. > > > > I think it's a good idea. I think (just my opinion) is that the adoption > > is low because it started out too big and daunting. It may get more > > adoption if we started a little smaller -- with maybe two checkboxes" and > > also didn't have a line at the top stating "Description", because that > feel > > skind of awkward and github inserts extended label info above it > sometimes. > > > > Just an idea. > > > >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Sheng Zha wrote: > >> > >> The PR template is designed for that and its poor adoption is causing > the > >> same issue of missing information in PRs. My concern of using JIRA is > that > >> more overhead would deter contribution and worsen the quality of > >> description. > >> > >> -sz > >> > >>> On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Nan Zhu wrote: > >>> > >>> +1 on both suggestions > >>> > >>> a bit concern is on the quality of JIRA which is created automatically > >>> > >>> I can see a lot of PRs are not described comprehensively, if we just > post > >>> what in description to JIRA, it's error-propagating > >>> > >>> > >>> but the quality of JIRA is a big topic worth more discussions > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Marco de Abreu < > >> marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > wrote: > >>> > Would it be possible to automatically create JIRA tickets when a > GitHub > issue is being created? We could then mirror all comments the same way > >> it's > happening in https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MXNET/issues/ > >> MXNET-42 > but make sure that the bot works in both ways. A comment on GitHub > >> would be > copied to JIRA and a JIRA comment to GitHub. I think this would be > good > >> as > a first step to start integration. > > -Marco > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:08 PM, Marco de Abreu < > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > > wrote: > > > I also see this as a big advantage in terms of transparency. I > >> personally > > will try to move away from any company internal issue trackers > (except > for > > confidential cases) and instead work on Jira that is being managed by > >> the > > community. This allows everybody to see what is being worked on and > >> gives > > them the possibility to chime with ideas or suggestions. > > > > In my opinion, this obsoletes TT and SIM to a big extent. It's up to > >> you > > if you maintain multiple issue trackers or stick to one. If anybody > >> has a > > (non-confidential) issue that's related to my work on CI, I ask them > to > > create a GitHub issue instead of a company internal ticket - I invite > > everybody to do the same. > > > > MXNet is an open source project and moving away from company internal > > trackers towards community driven ones is the next logical step in my > > opinion. At the moment, everybody is working on their own and it's > hard > to > > see for external people (or even developer who are not part of the > same > > team) what we're actually working on. > > > > -Marco > > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Naveen Swamy > >> wrote: > >> > >> I am +1 for using JIRA. Managing bigger projects within MXNet on > JIRA > >> brings openness to the project. MXNet Users and the contributors > also > get > >> a > >> sense of where the project is heading. > >> Bigger Tasks can be divided into sub-tasks which contributors can > pick > up > >> small tasks based on their expertise on and contribute > independently. > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier < > cjolivie...@gmail.com > >>> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> The vote was discussed on private@ before the vote on dev@, and > the > >> vote > >>> went on for a very long time. There was ZERO resistance. No one > >> "snuck" > >>> it in or "slipped it by". > >>> > >>> This, hopefully, phases out both SIM and tt, which are both are > being > >> used > >>> in ways that aren't what they're even designed for, IMO. Trouble > >> tickets > >>> are being used as a backlog for my team, which is insane. > >>> > >>> I've actually sent out a couple of mails on dev about contact me if > you > >>> don't have access to JIRA. If you would like to participate in the > >>> direction of the project, please keep up with the dev email list. > >>>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
Cool. Feel free to propose a change to the PR template. How would JIRA be less daunting to new users? -sz > On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Chris Olivier wrote: > > My $0.02 about the PR template. > > I think it's a good idea. I think (just my opinion) is that the adoption > is low because it started out too big and daunting. It may get more > adoption if we started a little smaller -- with maybe two checkboxes" and > also didn't have a line at the top stating "Description", because that feel > skind of awkward and github inserts extended label info above it sometimes. > > Just an idea. > >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Sheng Zha wrote: >> >> The PR template is designed for that and its poor adoption is causing the >> same issue of missing information in PRs. My concern of using JIRA is that >> more overhead would deter contribution and worsen the quality of >> description. >> >> -sz >> >>> On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Nan Zhu wrote: >>> >>> +1 on both suggestions >>> >>> a bit concern is on the quality of JIRA which is created automatically >>> >>> I can see a lot of PRs are not described comprehensively, if we just post >>> what in description to JIRA, it's error-propagating >>> >>> >>> but the quality of JIRA is a big topic worth more discussions >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Marco de Abreu < >> marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com wrote: >>> Would it be possible to automatically create JIRA tickets when a GitHub issue is being created? We could then mirror all comments the same way >> it's happening in https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MXNET/issues/ >> MXNET-42 but make sure that the bot works in both ways. A comment on GitHub >> would be copied to JIRA and a JIRA comment to GitHub. I think this would be good >> as a first step to start integration. -Marco On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:08 PM, Marco de Abreu < marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > wrote: > I also see this as a big advantage in terms of transparency. I >> personally > will try to move away from any company internal issue trackers (except for > confidential cases) and instead work on Jira that is being managed by >> the > community. This allows everybody to see what is being worked on and >> gives > them the possibility to chime with ideas or suggestions. > > In my opinion, this obsoletes TT and SIM to a big extent. It's up to >> you > if you maintain multiple issue trackers or stick to one. If anybody >> has a > (non-confidential) issue that's related to my work on CI, I ask them to > create a GitHub issue instead of a company internal ticket - I invite > everybody to do the same. > > MXNet is an open source project and moving away from company internal > trackers towards community driven ones is the next logical step in my > opinion. At the moment, everybody is working on their own and it's hard to > see for external people (or even developer who are not part of the same > team) what we're actually working on. > > -Marco > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Naveen Swamy >> wrote: >> >> I am +1 for using JIRA. Managing bigger projects within MXNet on JIRA >> brings openness to the project. MXNet Users and the contributors also get >> a >> sense of where the project is heading. >> Bigger Tasks can be divided into sub-tasks which contributors can pick up >> small tasks based on their expertise on and contribute independently. >> >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier >> >> wrote: >> >>> The vote was discussed on private@ before the vote on dev@, and the >> vote >>> went on for a very long time. There was ZERO resistance. No one >> "snuck" >>> it in or "slipped it by". >>> >>> This, hopefully, phases out both SIM and tt, which are both are being >> used >>> in ways that aren't what they're even designed for, IMO. Trouble >> tickets >>> are being used as a backlog for my team, which is insane. >>> >>> I've actually sent out a couple of mails on dev about contact me if you >>> don't have access to JIRA. If you would like to participate in the >>> direction of the project, please keep up with the dev email list. >>> >>> I gave you contributor permissions on JIRA, btw. >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Aaron Markham < >> aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> I'm not quite sure if I have enough background on reasons for or >> against this to vote in the next round, but my two cents: I didn't see much >>> debate on why we need yet another tool for issues that we have to manually maintain...the vote kind of slid in there without many stakeholders realizing what they were being signed up for. I w
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
My $0.02 about the PR template. I think it's a good idea. I think (just my opinion) is that the adoption is low because it started out too big and daunting. It may get more adoption if we started a little smaller -- with maybe two checkboxes" and also didn't have a line at the top stating "Description", because that feel skind of awkward and github inserts extended label info above it sometimes. Just an idea. On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Sheng Zha wrote: > The PR template is designed for that and its poor adoption is causing the > same issue of missing information in PRs. My concern of using JIRA is that > more overhead would deter contribution and worsen the quality of > description. > > -sz > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Nan Zhu wrote: > > > > +1 on both suggestions > > > > a bit concern is on the quality of JIRA which is created automatically > > > > I can see a lot of PRs are not described comprehensively, if we just post > > what in description to JIRA, it's error-propagating > > > > > > but the quality of JIRA is a big topic worth more discussions > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Marco de Abreu < > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > >> wrote: > > > >> Would it be possible to automatically create JIRA tickets when a GitHub > >> issue is being created? We could then mirror all comments the same way > it's > >> happening in https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MXNET/issues/ > MXNET-42 > >> but make sure that the bot works in both ways. A comment on GitHub > would be > >> copied to JIRA and a JIRA comment to GitHub. I think this would be good > as > >> a first step to start integration. > >> > >> -Marco > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:08 PM, Marco de Abreu < > >> marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > >>> wrote: > >> > >>> I also see this as a big advantage in terms of transparency. I > personally > >>> will try to move away from any company internal issue trackers (except > >> for > >>> confidential cases) and instead work on Jira that is being managed by > the > >>> community. This allows everybody to see what is being worked on and > gives > >>> them the possibility to chime with ideas or suggestions. > >>> > >>> In my opinion, this obsoletes TT and SIM to a big extent. It's up to > you > >>> if you maintain multiple issue trackers or stick to one. If anybody > has a > >>> (non-confidential) issue that's related to my work on CI, I ask them to > >>> create a GitHub issue instead of a company internal ticket - I invite > >>> everybody to do the same. > >>> > >>> MXNet is an open source project and moving away from company internal > >>> trackers towards community driven ones is the next logical step in my > >>> opinion. At the moment, everybody is working on their own and it's hard > >> to > >>> see for external people (or even developer who are not part of the same > >>> team) what we're actually working on. > >>> > >>> -Marco > >>> > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Naveen Swamy > wrote: > > I am +1 for using JIRA. Managing bigger projects within MXNet on JIRA > brings openness to the project. MXNet Users and the contributors also > >> get > a > sense of where the project is heading. > Bigger Tasks can be divided into sub-tasks which contributors can pick > >> up > small tasks based on their expertise on and contribute independently. > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier > > wrote: > > > The vote was discussed on private@ before the vote on dev@, and the > vote > > went on for a very long time. There was ZERO resistance. No one > "snuck" > > it in or "slipped it by". > > > > This, hopefully, phases out both SIM and tt, which are both are being > used > > in ways that aren't what they're even designed for, IMO. Trouble > tickets > > are being used as a backlog for my team, which is insane. > > > > I've actually sent out a couple of mails on dev about contact me if > >> you > > don't have access to JIRA. If you would like to participate in the > > direction of the project, please keep up with the dev email list. > > > > I gave you contributor permissions on JIRA, btw. > > . > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Aaron Markham < > aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> I'm not quite sure if I have enough background on reasons for or > against > >> this to vote in the next round, but my two cents: I didn't see much > > debate > >> on why we need yet another tool for issues that we have to manually > >> maintain...the vote kind of slid in there without many stakeholders > >> realizing what they were being signed up for. I was thinking, sure, > >> if > > YOU > >> want to make jira tickets, go right ahead. I have two internal > ticketing > >> systems to deal with already that assign tasks on MXNet, plus > >> GitHub. > > Jira > >> wou
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
Ideally, the JIRA work item should be created before coding starts -- long before the PR. So, I would suggest we don;t automatically create JIRAs because then it sort of defeats the purpose of JIRA managing a backlog. On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Nan Zhu wrote: > +1 on both suggestions > > a bit concern is on the quality of JIRA which is created automatically > > I can see a lot of PRs are not described comprehensively, if we just post > what in description to JIRA, it's error-propagating > > > but the quality of JIRA is a big topic worth more discussions > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Marco de Abreu < > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > > wrote: > > > Would it be possible to automatically create JIRA tickets when a GitHub > > issue is being created? We could then mirror all comments the same way > it's > > happening in https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MXNET/issues/ > MXNET-42 > > but make sure that the bot works in both ways. A comment on GitHub would > be > > copied to JIRA and a JIRA comment to GitHub. I think this would be good > as > > a first step to start integration. > > > > -Marco > > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:08 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > I also see this as a big advantage in terms of transparency. I > personally > > > will try to move away from any company internal issue trackers (except > > for > > > confidential cases) and instead work on Jira that is being managed by > the > > > community. This allows everybody to see what is being worked on and > gives > > > them the possibility to chime with ideas or suggestions. > > > > > > In my opinion, this obsoletes TT and SIM to a big extent. It's up to > you > > > if you maintain multiple issue trackers or stick to one. If anybody > has a > > > (non-confidential) issue that's related to my work on CI, I ask them to > > > create a GitHub issue instead of a company internal ticket - I invite > > > everybody to do the same. > > > > > > MXNet is an open source project and moving away from company internal > > > trackers towards community driven ones is the next logical step in my > > > opinion. At the moment, everybody is working on their own and it's hard > > to > > > see for external people (or even developer who are not part of the same > > > team) what we're actually working on. > > > > > > -Marco > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Naveen Swamy > wrote: > > > > > >> I am +1 for using JIRA. Managing bigger projects within MXNet on JIRA > > >> brings openness to the project. MXNet Users and the contributors also > > get > > >> a > > >> sense of where the project is heading. > > >> Bigger Tasks can be divided into sub-tasks which contributors can pick > > up > > >> small tasks based on their expertise on and contribute independently. > > >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > The vote was discussed on private@ before the vote on dev@, and the > > >> vote > > >> > went on for a very long time. There was ZERO resistance. No one > > >> "snuck" > > >> > it in or "slipped it by". > > >> > > > >> > This, hopefully, phases out both SIM and tt, which are both are > being > > >> used > > >> > in ways that aren't what they're even designed for, IMO. Trouble > > >> tickets > > >> > are being used as a backlog for my team, which is insane. > > >> > > > >> > I've actually sent out a couple of mails on dev about contact me if > > you > > >> > don't have access to JIRA. If you would like to participate in the > > >> > direction of the project, please keep up with the dev email list. > > >> > > > >> > I gave you contributor permissions on JIRA, btw. > > >> > . > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Aaron Markham < > > >> aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > I'm not quite sure if I have enough background on reasons for or > > >> against > > >> > > this to vote in the next round, but my two cents: I didn't see > much > > >> > debate > > >> > > on why we need yet another tool for issues that we have to > manually > > >> > > maintain...the vote kind of slid in there without many > stakeholders > > >> > > realizing what they were being signed up for. I was thinking, > sure, > > if > > >> > YOU > > >> > > want to make jira tickets, go right ahead. I have two internal > > >> ticketing > > >> > > systems to deal with already that assign tasks on MXNet, plus > > GitHub. > > >> > Jira > > >> > > would be four. Happy to make it work, but I'll need fifth tool to > > >> > aggregate > > >> > > communications and metrics between the other four tools! I'm only > > >> sort of > > >> > > joking. > > >> > > > > >> > > I saw Chris's response, and ok the public visibility part makes > > sense, > > >> > but > > >> > > does this phase out any other overhead? Does it integrate? Jira > has > > >> > > integration options so maybe we can eliminate some overhead... > Like > > >> > > something that hooks i
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
The PR template is designed for that and its poor adoption is causing the same issue of missing information in PRs. My concern of using JIRA is that more overhead would deter contribution and worsen the quality of description. -sz > On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Nan Zhu wrote: > > +1 on both suggestions > > a bit concern is on the quality of JIRA which is created automatically > > I can see a lot of PRs are not described comprehensively, if we just post > what in description to JIRA, it's error-propagating > > > but the quality of JIRA is a big topic worth more discussions > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Marco de Abreu > wrote: > >> Would it be possible to automatically create JIRA tickets when a GitHub >> issue is being created? We could then mirror all comments the same way it's >> happening in https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MXNET/issues/MXNET-42 >> but make sure that the bot works in both ways. A comment on GitHub would be >> copied to JIRA and a JIRA comment to GitHub. I think this would be good as >> a first step to start integration. >> >> -Marco >> >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:08 PM, Marco de Abreu < >> marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com >>> wrote: >> >>> I also see this as a big advantage in terms of transparency. I personally >>> will try to move away from any company internal issue trackers (except >> for >>> confidential cases) and instead work on Jira that is being managed by the >>> community. This allows everybody to see what is being worked on and gives >>> them the possibility to chime with ideas or suggestions. >>> >>> In my opinion, this obsoletes TT and SIM to a big extent. It's up to you >>> if you maintain multiple issue trackers or stick to one. If anybody has a >>> (non-confidential) issue that's related to my work on CI, I ask them to >>> create a GitHub issue instead of a company internal ticket - I invite >>> everybody to do the same. >>> >>> MXNet is an open source project and moving away from company internal >>> trackers towards community driven ones is the next logical step in my >>> opinion. At the moment, everybody is working on their own and it's hard >> to >>> see for external people (or even developer who are not part of the same >>> team) what we're actually working on. >>> >>> -Marco >>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Naveen Swamy wrote: I am +1 for using JIRA. Managing bigger projects within MXNet on JIRA brings openness to the project. MXNet Users and the contributors also >> get a sense of where the project is heading. Bigger Tasks can be divided into sub-tasks which contributors can pick >> up small tasks based on their expertise on and contribute independently. On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier wrote: > The vote was discussed on private@ before the vote on dev@, and the vote > went on for a very long time. There was ZERO resistance. No one "snuck" > it in or "slipped it by". > > This, hopefully, phases out both SIM and tt, which are both are being used > in ways that aren't what they're even designed for, IMO. Trouble tickets > are being used as a backlog for my team, which is insane. > > I've actually sent out a couple of mails on dev about contact me if >> you > don't have access to JIRA. If you would like to participate in the > direction of the project, please keep up with the dev email list. > > I gave you contributor permissions on JIRA, btw. > . > > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Aaron Markham < aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I'm not quite sure if I have enough background on reasons for or against >> this to vote in the next round, but my two cents: I didn't see much > debate >> on why we need yet another tool for issues that we have to manually >> maintain...the vote kind of slid in there without many stakeholders >> realizing what they were being signed up for. I was thinking, sure, >> if > YOU >> want to make jira tickets, go right ahead. I have two internal ticketing >> systems to deal with already that assign tasks on MXNet, plus >> GitHub. > Jira >> would be four. Happy to make it work, but I'll need fifth tool to > aggregate >> communications and metrics between the other four tools! I'm only sort of >> joking. >> >> I saw Chris's response, and ok the public visibility part makes >> sense, > but >> does this phase out any other overhead? Does it integrate? Jira has >> integration options so maybe we can eliminate some overhead... Like >> something that hooks into the GitHub api and generates jira tickets >> on > the >> fly... I want to believe there's a plan that makes this all easier. >> >> What value I don't see is how we lower barriers to contribution and make > it >> more fluid for new u
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
+1 on both suggestions a bit concern is on the quality of JIRA which is created automatically I can see a lot of PRs are not described comprehensively, if we just post what in description to JIRA, it's error-propagating but the quality of JIRA is a big topic worth more discussions On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Marco de Abreu wrote: > Would it be possible to automatically create JIRA tickets when a GitHub > issue is being created? We could then mirror all comments the same way it's > happening in https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MXNET/issues/MXNET-42 > but make sure that the bot works in both ways. A comment on GitHub would be > copied to JIRA and a JIRA comment to GitHub. I think this would be good as > a first step to start integration. > > -Marco > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:08 PM, Marco de Abreu < > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com > > wrote: > > > I also see this as a big advantage in terms of transparency. I personally > > will try to move away from any company internal issue trackers (except > for > > confidential cases) and instead work on Jira that is being managed by the > > community. This allows everybody to see what is being worked on and gives > > them the possibility to chime with ideas or suggestions. > > > > In my opinion, this obsoletes TT and SIM to a big extent. It's up to you > > if you maintain multiple issue trackers or stick to one. If anybody has a > > (non-confidential) issue that's related to my work on CI, I ask them to > > create a GitHub issue instead of a company internal ticket - I invite > > everybody to do the same. > > > > MXNet is an open source project and moving away from company internal > > trackers towards community driven ones is the next logical step in my > > opinion. At the moment, everybody is working on their own and it's hard > to > > see for external people (or even developer who are not part of the same > > team) what we're actually working on. > > > > -Marco > > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Naveen Swamy wrote: > > > >> I am +1 for using JIRA. Managing bigger projects within MXNet on JIRA > >> brings openness to the project. MXNet Users and the contributors also > get > >> a > >> sense of where the project is heading. > >> Bigger Tasks can be divided into sub-tasks which contributors can pick > up > >> small tasks based on their expertise on and contribute independently. > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier > >> wrote: > >> > >> > The vote was discussed on private@ before the vote on dev@, and the > >> vote > >> > went on for a very long time. There was ZERO resistance. No one > >> "snuck" > >> > it in or "slipped it by". > >> > > >> > This, hopefully, phases out both SIM and tt, which are both are being > >> used > >> > in ways that aren't what they're even designed for, IMO. Trouble > >> tickets > >> > are being used as a backlog for my team, which is insane. > >> > > >> > I've actually sent out a couple of mails on dev about contact me if > you > >> > don't have access to JIRA. If you would like to participate in the > >> > direction of the project, please keep up with the dev email list. > >> > > >> > I gave you contributor permissions on JIRA, btw. > >> > . > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Aaron Markham < > >> aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > I'm not quite sure if I have enough background on reasons for or > >> against > >> > > this to vote in the next round, but my two cents: I didn't see much > >> > debate > >> > > on why we need yet another tool for issues that we have to manually > >> > > maintain...the vote kind of slid in there without many stakeholders > >> > > realizing what they were being signed up for. I was thinking, sure, > if > >> > YOU > >> > > want to make jira tickets, go right ahead. I have two internal > >> ticketing > >> > > systems to deal with already that assign tasks on MXNet, plus > GitHub. > >> > Jira > >> > > would be four. Happy to make it work, but I'll need fifth tool to > >> > aggregate > >> > > communications and metrics between the other four tools! I'm only > >> sort of > >> > > joking. > >> > > > >> > > I saw Chris's response, and ok the public visibility part makes > sense, > >> > but > >> > > does this phase out any other overhead? Does it integrate? Jira has > >> > > integration options so maybe we can eliminate some overhead... Like > >> > > something that hooks into the GitHub api and generates jira tickets > on > >> > the > >> > > fly... I want to believe there's a plan that makes this all easier. > >> > > > >> > > What value I don't see is how we lower barriers to contribution and > >> make > >> > it > >> > > more fluid for new users that could become contributors. What's the > >> story > >> > > and value proposition? > >> > > > >> > > Also, I don't see any docs on the website or on github on how to > sign > >> up > >> > > for jira, or how to contribute according to this new requirement > >> anywhere > >> > > on t
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
Would it be possible to automatically create JIRA tickets when a GitHub issue is being created? We could then mirror all comments the same way it's happening in https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MXNET/issues/MXNET-42 but make sure that the bot works in both ways. A comment on GitHub would be copied to JIRA and a JIRA comment to GitHub. I think this would be good as a first step to start integration. -Marco On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:08 PM, Marco de Abreu wrote: > I also see this as a big advantage in terms of transparency. I personally > will try to move away from any company internal issue trackers (except for > confidential cases) and instead work on Jira that is being managed by the > community. This allows everybody to see what is being worked on and gives > them the possibility to chime with ideas or suggestions. > > In my opinion, this obsoletes TT and SIM to a big extent. It's up to you > if you maintain multiple issue trackers or stick to one. If anybody has a > (non-confidential) issue that's related to my work on CI, I ask them to > create a GitHub issue instead of a company internal ticket - I invite > everybody to do the same. > > MXNet is an open source project and moving away from company internal > trackers towards community driven ones is the next logical step in my > opinion. At the moment, everybody is working on their own and it's hard to > see for external people (or even developer who are not part of the same > team) what we're actually working on. > > -Marco > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Naveen Swamy wrote: > >> I am +1 for using JIRA. Managing bigger projects within MXNet on JIRA >> brings openness to the project. MXNet Users and the contributors also get >> a >> sense of where the project is heading. >> Bigger Tasks can be divided into sub-tasks which contributors can pick up >> small tasks based on their expertise on and contribute independently. >> >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier >> wrote: >> >> > The vote was discussed on private@ before the vote on dev@, and the >> vote >> > went on for a very long time. There was ZERO resistance. No one >> "snuck" >> > it in or "slipped it by". >> > >> > This, hopefully, phases out both SIM and tt, which are both are being >> used >> > in ways that aren't what they're even designed for, IMO. Trouble >> tickets >> > are being used as a backlog for my team, which is insane. >> > >> > I've actually sent out a couple of mails on dev about contact me if you >> > don't have access to JIRA. If you would like to participate in the >> > direction of the project, please keep up with the dev email list. >> > >> > I gave you contributor permissions on JIRA, btw. >> > . >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Aaron Markham < >> aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > I'm not quite sure if I have enough background on reasons for or >> against >> > > this to vote in the next round, but my two cents: I didn't see much >> > debate >> > > on why we need yet another tool for issues that we have to manually >> > > maintain...the vote kind of slid in there without many stakeholders >> > > realizing what they were being signed up for. I was thinking, sure, if >> > YOU >> > > want to make jira tickets, go right ahead. I have two internal >> ticketing >> > > systems to deal with already that assign tasks on MXNet, plus GitHub. >> > Jira >> > > would be four. Happy to make it work, but I'll need fifth tool to >> > aggregate >> > > communications and metrics between the other four tools! I'm only >> sort of >> > > joking. >> > > >> > > I saw Chris's response, and ok the public visibility part makes sense, >> > but >> > > does this phase out any other overhead? Does it integrate? Jira has >> > > integration options so maybe we can eliminate some overhead... Like >> > > something that hooks into the GitHub api and generates jira tickets on >> > the >> > > fly... I want to believe there's a plan that makes this all easier. >> > > >> > > What value I don't see is how we lower barriers to contribution and >> make >> > it >> > > more fluid for new users that could become contributors. What's the >> story >> > > and value proposition? >> > > >> > > Also, I don't see any docs on the website or on github on how to sign >> up >> > > for jira, or how to contribute according to this new requirement >> anywhere >> > > on the site. Myself and new contributors wouldn't know what the >> expected >> > > flow looks like because it's not really accessible. I now see the >> > > confluence wiki, but that's pretty much hidden from anyone browsing >> the >> > > site or github and looking to contribute. Why is this info on >> confluence >> > at >> > > all? Why not in the docs on github that are rendered to the website? >> Or >> > > conversely, why is some of the info on github and on the website, if >> it >> > is >> > > being maintained and current only on confluence? >> > > >> > > These are two separate issues really, but I think
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
I also see this as a big advantage in terms of transparency. I personally will try to move away from any company internal issue trackers (except for confidential cases) and instead work on Jira that is being managed by the community. This allows everybody to see what is being worked on and gives them the possibility to chime with ideas or suggestions. In my opinion, this obsoletes TT and SIM to a big extent. It's up to you if you maintain multiple issue trackers or stick to one. If anybody has a (non-confidential) issue that's related to my work on CI, I ask them to create a GitHub issue instead of a company internal ticket - I invite everybody to do the same. MXNet is an open source project and moving away from company internal trackers towards community driven ones is the next logical step in my opinion. At the moment, everybody is working on their own and it's hard to see for external people (or even developer who are not part of the same team) what we're actually working on. -Marco On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Naveen Swamy wrote: > I am +1 for using JIRA. Managing bigger projects within MXNet on JIRA > brings openness to the project. MXNet Users and the contributors also get a > sense of where the project is heading. > Bigger Tasks can be divided into sub-tasks which contributors can pick up > small tasks based on their expertise on and contribute independently. > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier > wrote: > > > The vote was discussed on private@ before the vote on dev@, and the vote > > went on for a very long time. There was ZERO resistance. No one > "snuck" > > it in or "slipped it by". > > > > This, hopefully, phases out both SIM and tt, which are both are being > used > > in ways that aren't what they're even designed for, IMO. Trouble tickets > > are being used as a backlog for my team, which is insane. > > > > I've actually sent out a couple of mails on dev about contact me if you > > don't have access to JIRA. If you would like to participate in the > > direction of the project, please keep up with the dev email list. > > > > I gave you contributor permissions on JIRA, btw. > > . > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Aaron Markham < > aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I'm not quite sure if I have enough background on reasons for or > against > > > this to vote in the next round, but my two cents: I didn't see much > > debate > > > on why we need yet another tool for issues that we have to manually > > > maintain...the vote kind of slid in there without many stakeholders > > > realizing what they were being signed up for. I was thinking, sure, if > > YOU > > > want to make jira tickets, go right ahead. I have two internal > ticketing > > > systems to deal with already that assign tasks on MXNet, plus GitHub. > > Jira > > > would be four. Happy to make it work, but I'll need fifth tool to > > aggregate > > > communications and metrics between the other four tools! I'm only sort > of > > > joking. > > > > > > I saw Chris's response, and ok the public visibility part makes sense, > > but > > > does this phase out any other overhead? Does it integrate? Jira has > > > integration options so maybe we can eliminate some overhead... Like > > > something that hooks into the GitHub api and generates jira tickets on > > the > > > fly... I want to believe there's a plan that makes this all easier. > > > > > > What value I don't see is how we lower barriers to contribution and > make > > it > > > more fluid for new users that could become contributors. What's the > story > > > and value proposition? > > > > > > Also, I don't see any docs on the website or on github on how to sign > up > > > for jira, or how to contribute according to this new requirement > anywhere > > > on the site. Myself and new contributors wouldn't know what the > expected > > > flow looks like because it's not really accessible. I now see the > > > confluence wiki, but that's pretty much hidden from anyone browsing the > > > site or github and looking to contribute. Why is this info on > confluence > > at > > > all? Why not in the docs on github that are rendered to the website? Or > > > conversely, why is some of the info on github and on the website, if it > > is > > > being maintained and current only on confluence? > > > > > > These are two separate issues really, but I think if you want buy-in, > > this > > > needs to be more transparent and obvious, and provide clear reasons and > > > benefits to why you're asking for more overhead. > > > > > > Aaron > > > > > > On Mar 6, 2018 21:14, "Eric Xie" wrote: > > > > > > > -1 > > > > > > > > JIRA is ancient and arcane. This adds unnecessary overhead. > > > > > > > > On 2018/03/03 06:11:12, CodingCat wrote: > > > > > This vote passes with 6 +1 votes (6 bindings) and no 0 or -1 votes. > > > > > > > > > > Binding +1: > > > > > Chris Olivier > > > > > Indhu Bharathi > > > > > Suneel Marthi > > > > > Yuan Tang > > > > > Marco de Abreu >
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
I am +1 for using JIRA. Managing bigger projects within MXNet on JIRA brings openness to the project. MXNet Users and the contributors also get a sense of where the project is heading. Bigger Tasks can be divided into sub-tasks which contributors can pick up small tasks based on their expertise on and contribute independently. On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier wrote: > The vote was discussed on private@ before the vote on dev@, and the vote > went on for a very long time. There was ZERO resistance. No one "snuck" > it in or "slipped it by". > > This, hopefully, phases out both SIM and tt, which are both are being used > in ways that aren't what they're even designed for, IMO. Trouble tickets > are being used as a backlog for my team, which is insane. > > I've actually sent out a couple of mails on dev about contact me if you > don't have access to JIRA. If you would like to participate in the > direction of the project, please keep up with the dev email list. > > I gave you contributor permissions on JIRA, btw. > . > > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Aaron Markham > wrote: > > > I'm not quite sure if I have enough background on reasons for or against > > this to vote in the next round, but my two cents: I didn't see much > debate > > on why we need yet another tool for issues that we have to manually > > maintain...the vote kind of slid in there without many stakeholders > > realizing what they were being signed up for. I was thinking, sure, if > YOU > > want to make jira tickets, go right ahead. I have two internal ticketing > > systems to deal with already that assign tasks on MXNet, plus GitHub. > Jira > > would be four. Happy to make it work, but I'll need fifth tool to > aggregate > > communications and metrics between the other four tools! I'm only sort of > > joking. > > > > I saw Chris's response, and ok the public visibility part makes sense, > but > > does this phase out any other overhead? Does it integrate? Jira has > > integration options so maybe we can eliminate some overhead... Like > > something that hooks into the GitHub api and generates jira tickets on > the > > fly... I want to believe there's a plan that makes this all easier. > > > > What value I don't see is how we lower barriers to contribution and make > it > > more fluid for new users that could become contributors. What's the story > > and value proposition? > > > > Also, I don't see any docs on the website or on github on how to sign up > > for jira, or how to contribute according to this new requirement anywhere > > on the site. Myself and new contributors wouldn't know what the expected > > flow looks like because it's not really accessible. I now see the > > confluence wiki, but that's pretty much hidden from anyone browsing the > > site or github and looking to contribute. Why is this info on confluence > at > > all? Why not in the docs on github that are rendered to the website? Or > > conversely, why is some of the info on github and on the website, if it > is > > being maintained and current only on confluence? > > > > These are two separate issues really, but I think if you want buy-in, > this > > needs to be more transparent and obvious, and provide clear reasons and > > benefits to why you're asking for more overhead. > > > > Aaron > > > > On Mar 6, 2018 21:14, "Eric Xie" wrote: > > > > > -1 > > > > > > JIRA is ancient and arcane. This adds unnecessary overhead. > > > > > > On 2018/03/03 06:11:12, CodingCat wrote: > > > > This vote passes with 6 +1 votes (6 bindings) and no 0 or -1 votes. > > > > > > > > Binding +1: > > > > Chris Olivier > > > > Indhu Bharathi > > > > Suneel Marthi > > > > Yuan Tang > > > > Marco de Abreu > > > > Sebastian Schelter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vote thread: > > > > https://lists.apache.org/list.html?d...@mxnet.apache.org:lte= > > > 1M:tracking%20code%20changes%20with%20JIRA%20by%20associatin > > > g%20pull%20requests > > > > > > > > I will continue with pushing the content to wiki and take it into > > > practice > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
The vote was discussed on private@ before the vote on dev@, and the vote went on for a very long time. There was ZERO resistance. No one "snuck" it in or "slipped it by". This, hopefully, phases out both SIM and tt, which are both are being used in ways that aren't what they're even designed for, IMO. Trouble tickets are being used as a backlog for my team, which is insane. I've actually sent out a couple of mails on dev about contact me if you don't have access to JIRA. If you would like to participate in the direction of the project, please keep up with the dev email list. I gave you contributor permissions on JIRA, btw. . On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Aaron Markham wrote: > I'm not quite sure if I have enough background on reasons for or against > this to vote in the next round, but my two cents: I didn't see much debate > on why we need yet another tool for issues that we have to manually > maintain...the vote kind of slid in there without many stakeholders > realizing what they were being signed up for. I was thinking, sure, if YOU > want to make jira tickets, go right ahead. I have two internal ticketing > systems to deal with already that assign tasks on MXNet, plus GitHub. Jira > would be four. Happy to make it work, but I'll need fifth tool to aggregate > communications and metrics between the other four tools! I'm only sort of > joking. > > I saw Chris's response, and ok the public visibility part makes sense, but > does this phase out any other overhead? Does it integrate? Jira has > integration options so maybe we can eliminate some overhead... Like > something that hooks into the GitHub api and generates jira tickets on the > fly... I want to believe there's a plan that makes this all easier. > > What value I don't see is how we lower barriers to contribution and make it > more fluid for new users that could become contributors. What's the story > and value proposition? > > Also, I don't see any docs on the website or on github on how to sign up > for jira, or how to contribute according to this new requirement anywhere > on the site. Myself and new contributors wouldn't know what the expected > flow looks like because it's not really accessible. I now see the > confluence wiki, but that's pretty much hidden from anyone browsing the > site or github and looking to contribute. Why is this info on confluence at > all? Why not in the docs on github that are rendered to the website? Or > conversely, why is some of the info on github and on the website, if it is > being maintained and current only on confluence? > > These are two separate issues really, but I think if you want buy-in, this > needs to be more transparent and obvious, and provide clear reasons and > benefits to why you're asking for more overhead. > > Aaron > > On Mar 6, 2018 21:14, "Eric Xie" wrote: > > > -1 > > > > JIRA is ancient and arcane. This adds unnecessary overhead. > > > > On 2018/03/03 06:11:12, CodingCat wrote: > > > This vote passes with 6 +1 votes (6 bindings) and no 0 or -1 votes. > > > > > > Binding +1: > > > Chris Olivier > > > Indhu Bharathi > > > Suneel Marthi > > > Yuan Tang > > > Marco de Abreu > > > Sebastian Schelter > > > > > > > > > > > > Vote thread: > > > https://lists.apache.org/list.html?d...@mxnet.apache.org:lte= > > 1M:tracking%20code%20changes%20with%20JIRA%20by%20associatin > > g%20pull%20requests > > > > > > I will continue with pushing the content to wiki and take it into > > practice > > > > > >
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
I'm not quite sure if I have enough background on reasons for or against this to vote in the next round, but my two cents: I didn't see much debate on why we need yet another tool for issues that we have to manually maintain...the vote kind of slid in there without many stakeholders realizing what they were being signed up for. I was thinking, sure, if YOU want to make jira tickets, go right ahead. I have two internal ticketing systems to deal with already that assign tasks on MXNet, plus GitHub. Jira would be four. Happy to make it work, but I'll need fifth tool to aggregate communications and metrics between the other four tools! I'm only sort of joking. I saw Chris's response, and ok the public visibility part makes sense, but does this phase out any other overhead? Does it integrate? Jira has integration options so maybe we can eliminate some overhead... Like something that hooks into the GitHub api and generates jira tickets on the fly... I want to believe there's a plan that makes this all easier. What value I don't see is how we lower barriers to contribution and make it more fluid for new users that could become contributors. What's the story and value proposition? Also, I don't see any docs on the website or on github on how to sign up for jira, or how to contribute according to this new requirement anywhere on the site. Myself and new contributors wouldn't know what the expected flow looks like because it's not really accessible. I now see the confluence wiki, but that's pretty much hidden from anyone browsing the site or github and looking to contribute. Why is this info on confluence at all? Why not in the docs on github that are rendered to the website? Or conversely, why is some of the info on github and on the website, if it is being maintained and current only on confluence? These are two separate issues really, but I think if you want buy-in, this needs to be more transparent and obvious, and provide clear reasons and benefits to why you're asking for more overhead. Aaron On Mar 6, 2018 21:14, "Eric Xie" wrote: > -1 > > JIRA is ancient and arcane. This adds unnecessary overhead. > > On 2018/03/03 06:11:12, CodingCat wrote: > > This vote passes with 6 +1 votes (6 bindings) and no 0 or -1 votes. > > > > Binding +1: > > Chris Olivier > > Indhu Bharathi > > Suneel Marthi > > Yuan Tang > > Marco de Abreu > > Sebastian Schelter > > > > > > > > Vote thread: > > https://lists.apache.org/list.html?d...@mxnet.apache.org:lte= > 1M:tracking%20code%20changes%20with%20JIRA%20by%20associatin > g%20pull%20requests > > > > I will continue with pushing the content to wiki and take it into > practice > > >
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
Would it be possible to add the instruction to the PR template (along with a link to Jira) in order to provide users with an easy way to create an issue if required. -Marco On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 6:34 AM, Chris Olivier wrote: > Eric, > > while you may not be, most people are using some sort of > crappy-JIRA-like-tool (such as SIM) which is both way behind JIRA in > utility and usability as well as not public, so the rest of the world can’t > see the backlog or what work orders are or whatever. the development > process does not appear open, and this may contribute to the slow adoption > of mxnet. > a lot of us are also struggling with internal > ticketing tools which are kind of rude to use for non-critical problems, > IMHO and JIRA can help to alleviate these pain-points by having a place to > translate github issues to work items. > > not sure how it could be considered arcane. compared to what? > > github has issues such as you must be a committer to assign an item, as > well as other issues revolving around write access to the repository. in > addition, it’s a pretty feature-weak tool compared to JIRA both in > scrum/kanban/module/etc ways as well as reporting tools. github is still > useful for issue reporting, with JIRA being actual work-items (something > there is no public equivalent today) > > > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:22 PM Nan Zhu wrote: > > > I think the right approach here is to start another vote on terminate the > > starting process of using JIRA, > > > > since we have passed this vote > > > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:13 PM, Eric Xie wrote: > > > > > -1 > > > > > > JIRA is ancient and arcane. This adds unnecessary overhead. > > > > > > On 2018/03/03 06:11:12, CodingCat wrote: > > > > This vote passes with 6 +1 votes (6 bindings) and no 0 or -1 votes. > > > > > > > > Binding +1: > > > > Chris Olivier > > > > Indhu Bharathi > > > > Suneel Marthi > > > > Yuan Tang > > > > Marco de Abreu > > > > Sebastian Schelter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vote thread: > > > > https://lists.apache.org/list.html?d...@mxnet.apache.org:lte= > > > 1M:tracking%20code%20changes%20with%20JIRA%20by%20associating%20pull% > > > 20requests > > > > > > > > I will continue with pushing the content to wiki and take it into > > > practice > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
Eric, while you may not be, most people are using some sort of crappy-JIRA-like-tool (such as SIM) which is both way behind JIRA in utility and usability as well as not public, so the rest of the world can’t see the backlog or what work orders are or whatever. the development process does not appear open, and this may contribute to the slow adoption of mxnet. a lot of us are also struggling with internal ticketing tools which are kind of rude to use for non-critical problems, IMHO and JIRA can help to alleviate these pain-points by having a place to translate github issues to work items. not sure how it could be considered arcane. compared to what? github has issues such as you must be a committer to assign an item, as well as other issues revolving around write access to the repository. in addition, it’s a pretty feature-weak tool compared to JIRA both in scrum/kanban/module/etc ways as well as reporting tools. github is still useful for issue reporting, with JIRA being actual work-items (something there is no public equivalent today) On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:22 PM Nan Zhu wrote: > I think the right approach here is to start another vote on terminate the > starting process of using JIRA, > > since we have passed this vote > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:13 PM, Eric Xie wrote: > > > -1 > > > > JIRA is ancient and arcane. This adds unnecessary overhead. > > > > On 2018/03/03 06:11:12, CodingCat wrote: > > > This vote passes with 6 +1 votes (6 bindings) and no 0 or -1 votes. > > > > > > Binding +1: > > > Chris Olivier > > > Indhu Bharathi > > > Suneel Marthi > > > Yuan Tang > > > Marco de Abreu > > > Sebastian Schelter > > > > > > > > > > > > Vote thread: > > > https://lists.apache.org/list.html?d...@mxnet.apache.org:lte= > > 1M:tracking%20code%20changes%20with%20JIRA%20by%20associating%20pull% > > 20requests > > > > > > I will continue with pushing the content to wiki and take it into > > practice > > > > > >
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
I think the right approach here is to start another vote on terminate the starting process of using JIRA, since we have passed this vote On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:13 PM, Eric Xie wrote: > -1 > > JIRA is ancient and arcane. This adds unnecessary overhead. > > On 2018/03/03 06:11:12, CodingCat wrote: > > This vote passes with 6 +1 votes (6 bindings) and no 0 or -1 votes. > > > > Binding +1: > > Chris Olivier > > Indhu Bharathi > > Suneel Marthi > > Yuan Tang > > Marco de Abreu > > Sebastian Schelter > > > > > > > > Vote thread: > > https://lists.apache.org/list.html?d...@mxnet.apache.org:lte= > 1M:tracking%20code%20changes%20with%20JIRA%20by%20associating%20pull% > 20requests > > > > I will continue with pushing the content to wiki and take it into > practice > > >
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
-1 JIRA is ancient and arcane. This adds unnecessary overhead. On 2018/03/03 06:11:12, CodingCat wrote: > This vote passes with 6 +1 votes (6 bindings) and no 0 or -1 votes. > > Binding +1: > Chris Olivier > Indhu Bharathi > Suneel Marthi > Yuan Tang > Marco de Abreu > Sebastian Schelter > > > > Vote thread: > https://lists.apache.org/list.html?d...@mxnet.apache.org:lte=1M:tracking%20code%20changes%20with%20JIRA%20by%20associating%20pull%20requests > > I will continue with pushing the content to wiki and take it into practice >
[RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
This vote passes with 6 +1 votes (6 bindings) and no 0 or -1 votes. Binding +1: Chris Olivier Indhu Bharathi Suneel Marthi Yuan Tang Marco de Abreu Sebastian Schelter Vote thread: https://lists.apache.org/list.html?d...@mxnet.apache.org:lte=1M:tracking%20code%20changes%20with%20JIRA%20by%20associating%20pull%20requests I will continue with pushing the content to wiki and take it into practice
