Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Hi All, I created INFRA-20424 for that. Food for thought: I also noticed some more information in Arrow README.md file. [![Build

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

>> So maybe Infra can use the description there +1 for using the description >> For the link to Jira it depends on README.adoc. But if we put a link to OFBiz site then the link to Jira is there. Makes sense Thanks and regards, Aditya Sharma On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 7:22 PM Jacques Le Roux <

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Thanks All, I will put the wiki page in Attic. I totally agree Aditya, good idea. It seems we need to ask Infra for that. I see no way to do it ourselves. Also it seems the "labels" comes from doap_OFBiz.rdf under site repo. So maybe Infra can use the description there or, as you suggest,

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

+1 Jacques. I think we are good with Jira for now and if needed we can add a link to Jira in description like Apache Arrow[1] Also, I would suggest that we should change the description of the repository[2] from "Mirror of Apache OFBiz Framework" to a description of OFBiz and the official website

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

+1 Thanks Jacques, Michael Brohl ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de Am 25.05.20 um 18:53 schrieb Jacques Le Roux: Hi All, I believe we are now pragmatically using JIRA + Patch, or GH + PR. Remains the question about allowing the creation of issues in GH. It seems to me that nobody actually

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

HI Jacques, IMO, we can. But I would give it another few days (the customary minimum) to see whether others care to differ. Met vriendelijke groet, Pierre Smits *Proud* *contributor** of* Apache OFBiz since 2008 (without privileges) *Apache Trafodion

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Hi All, I believe we are now pragmatically using JIRA + Patch, or GH + PR. Remains the question about allowing the creation of issues in GH. It seems to me that nobody actually asked for that since Jira is enough for our needs. So I should not need more than what we use currently and can put

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

+1 James! Thanks, Michael Am 18.03.20 um 17:13 schrieb James Yong: Hi all, I personally feel we should allow both JIRA and Github for issue management, and let contributers use their own judgement on which one to use. JIRA contains wealth of information and many open issues for review,

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Hi all, I personally feel we should allow both JIRA and Github for issue management, and let contributers use their own judgement on which one to use. JIRA contains wealth of information and many open issues for review, while Github allows easier review of source codes. So do either JIRA +

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

You are correct. Instead of just looking at what the technical differences (and similarities) between between the two approaches are (and opting for one or the other based on personal preferences), we should be looking at: 1. will the change from one to another bring more to our potential

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Hi Benjamin, All, That's a good point indeed. And we 1st need to clearly define what are the old and the new processes. Here is a try: The "old process" (not so old, changed with Git replacing Svn, hence the discussion) is * use Jira to create issues with possibly attached patches and

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

I have been following this discussion for a while.  However, I still wonder if this discussion is about which of the two options is the better one. In my opinion, the discussion should rather be about whether the potential benefits of a new process justify the effort to change the old one. It

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Le 13/03/2020 à 11:40, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 11:33 AM Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: [...] I have asked at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-19950 if we could have GH issues. Yes, I saw your comment but I am wondering if the way

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 11:33 AM Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > [...] > I have asked at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-19950 if we > could have GH issues. > Yes, I saw your comment but I am wondering if the way you have phrased your question [*] will make

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Le 13/03/2020 à 11:29, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:20 PM Pierre Smits wrote: [...] As for PMC Members claiming that the Github services (repositories etc.) are not *official* ASF tools, I suggest these persons stop this kind of FUD (and maybe check back with the

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:20 PM Pierre Smits wrote: > [...] > As for PMC Members claiming that the Github services (repositories etc.) > are not *official* ASF tools, I suggest these persons stop this kind of FUD > (and maybe check back with the ASF). > Pierre, rather than accusing others of

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Hi all, I'd like to encourage everyone to visit the wiki page https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/GITHUB+plus+GIT+VS+JIRA+plus+GIT, read carefully, check, dicuss and ask questions to get to a good information base for an important decision to make. Thanks everyone, Michael

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

You are all invited to review, discuss in comments and possibly add pro and cons on this page https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/GITHUB+plus+GIT+VS+JIRA+plus+GIT It would else become unreadable here... Hopefully we will get to a consensus... Jacques Le 12/03/2020 à 13:40,

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Le 12/03/2020 à 13:32, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : Le 12/03/2020 à 12:17, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 11:47 AM Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: As I see no Jira references in "Release Distribution Policy" I guess it's not an issue to no longer use

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Le 12/03/2020 à 12:17, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 11:47 AM Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: As I see no Jira references in "Release Distribution Policy" I guess it's not an issue to no longer use Jira to manage versions and releases numbers, ie

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 11:47 AM Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > As I see no Jira references in "Release Distribution Policy" I guess it's > not an issue to no longer use Jira to manage versions and releases numbers, > ie using > > [1.5] >

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

or complicated subjects To stop at this moment, I have created https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Adopting+Github+Workflow and added Jacopo's answer as RM Jacques

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Le 12/03/2020 à 10:30, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : Pro: 1. More devs know GH than Jira and it has been created for them (when using Git). They like it, we need them. 2. Simple things are easy to directly push with the PR commit button (w/ forced rebase and merge). For large or complicate

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Le 12/03/2020 à 11:40, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:32 AM Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: [...] 6. GH has intrinsically tools to version and release (it's a dev tool not a reporting tool). Please Jacopo confirm since you are the release

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:32 AM Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > [...] > 6. GH has intrinsically tools to version and release (it's a dev tool not > a reporting tool). Please Jacopo confirm since you are the release > manager[1.5] > Jacques, I am not sure what kind

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Le 12/03/2020 à 10:30, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : It then offers the same possibilities than Jira (which adapted) It then offers the same possibilities than Jira (which adapted during its evolution) Jacques

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

> I think you cannot make the tool responsible for how it is used in this > particular case. of course the tool is responsible! Jira is not a tool to review code! "Jira: Issue & Project Tracking Software" so nothing to do with code ;) Just imagine how it would be possible with another tool.

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Le 12/03/2020 à 09:53, Samuel Trégouët a écrit : Hi Michael, To justify the need of making a change, to me the question is quite the opposite: what does GitHub offer which Jira does not in the domain of contributing/ project management/ issue tracking? Jira review process is awfull! I tried

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Le 12/03/2020 à 09:12, Michael Brohl a écrit : Hi Jacques, I will just pick out one topic here, see inline: Am 12.03.20 um 08:32 schrieb Jacques Le Roux: The most important question to answer is: what does Jira offers that GH does not? To justify the need of making a change, to me the

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Samuel, I think you cannot make the tool responsible for how it is used in this particular case. The issue was opened for review only after the feature branch from Jacques was opened, before the exchange was meant to be just between Jacques and James. The contributors could have created a

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Hi Michael, > > To justify the need of making a change, to me the question is quite the > opposite: what does GitHub offer which Jira does not in the domain of > contributing/ project management/ issue tracking? Jira review process is awfull! I tried to review OFBIZ-11306 and give up after 3

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Hi Jacques, I will just pick out one topic here, see inline: Am 12.03.20 um 08:32 schrieb Jacques Le Roux: The most important question to answer is: what does Jira offers that GH does not? To justify the need of making a change, to me the question is quite the opposite: what does GitHub

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Le 11/03/2020 à 16:29, Mathieu Lirzin a écrit : Jacques Le Roux writes: Le 11/03/2020 à 12:33, Mathieu Lirzin a écrit : This said you certainly saw this thread started by Pierre Smits: https://markmail.org/message/so7ljoqxzuq7jplz and the related wiki document

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Hi Mathieu, > Am 11.03.2020 um 23:04 schrieb Mathieu Lirzin : > > Michael Brohl writes: > >>> Am 11.03.20 um 19:13 schrieb Mathieu Lirzin: >>> >>> So to “manage” stuff you could still use tickets and ML discussion like >>> before, but it would just be done when necesarry not to follow the

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Michael Brohl writes: > Am 11.03.20 um 19:13 schrieb Mathieu Lirzin: > >> So to “manage” stuff you could still use tickets and ML discussion like >> before, but it would just be done when necesarry not to follow the >> “everything as to be attached to JIRA” policy which was often justified >> by

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Mathieu, Michael, all, Please try to keep an open mind Sticking to own dictats about one or the other set of 'rules' and tools is not helping this project. It is better to find a compromise that works best (or is least restrictive) for all, seasoned contributors (whether privileged or not)

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Hi, On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 05:08:47PM +0100, Michael Brohl wrote: > > > > - Adopt Github Pull Request (PR) as the unique channel for code contribution > > -1 > > I don't see a reason why we should not allow patches also. It will make it > easier for people to contribute who are not able (or

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Hi Mathieu, Am 11.03.20 um 19:13 schrieb Mathieu Lirzin: Hello Michael, Michael Brohl writes: Am 11.03.20 um 16:29 schrieb Mathieu Lirzin: You are right. I should be more constructive than just acknowledging that the requirements I expressed were not properly considered. Let me try

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Jacques Le Roux writes: > Le 11/03/2020 à 17:08, Michael Brohl a écrit : >> >> Am 11.03.20 um 16:29 schrieb Mathieu Lirzin: >>> - Adopt Github Pull Request (PR) as the unique channel for code contribution >> >> -1 >> >> I don't see a reason why we should not allow patches also. It will >> make

Re: Adopting Github Workflow (was: Git history problem)

As the philosopher Yoda once stated: "Do or Do Not, There is no try'. Having a restriction on how (potential) non-privileged contributors can contribute is not a good thing for this project. What it will lead to is more instead of less hurdles to contribute. Some may report a bug in an email

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Mathieu Lirzin writes: > The reason I see for requiring a unique code contribution channel is > lowering cognitive overload for everyone. > > If a community ends up “requiring” certain contribution procedures that ^^^

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Hello Michael, Michael Brohl writes: > Am 11.03.20 um 16:29 schrieb Mathieu Lirzin: >> You are right. I should be more constructive than just acknowledging >> that the requirements I expressed were not properly considered. >> >> Let me try joining Pierre's effort by providing a simple but

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

On top of that, I though agree that 2 ways to do the same thing is always confusing, especially for newbies. I had this experience with the APL language. There you have not 2 ways but almost as much as your imagination allows to do things. And yes it's confusing, it's also fun, but that's

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Le 11/03/2020 à 17:08, Michael Brohl a écrit : Hi Mathieu, inline... Inline too... Am 11.03.20 um 16:29 schrieb Mathieu Lirzin: - Adopt Github Pull Request (PR) as the unique channel for code contribution -1 I don't see a reason why we should not allow patches also. It will make it

Re: Adopting Github Workflow

Hi Mathieu, inline... Am 11.03.20 um 16:29 schrieb Mathieu Lirzin: You are right. I should be more constructive than just acknowledging that the requirements I expressed were not properly considered. Let me try joining Pierre's effort by providing a simple but radical proposal for our

Re: Adopting Github Workflow (was: Git history problem)

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 4:30 PM Mathieu Lirzin wrote: > [...] > - Adopt Github Pull Request (PR) as the unique channel for code > contribution > +1 > - Require tickets only for bug reports > +1 > - Replace JIRA with Github issues > I am not sure about this: we have a huge backlog of

Adopting Github Workflow (was: Git history problem)

Jacques Le Roux writes: > Le 11/03/2020 à 12:33, Mathieu Lirzin a écrit : This said you certainly saw this thread started by Pierre Smits: >>> https://markmail.org/message/so7ljoqxzuq7jplz and the related wiki >>> document >>>