Re: Additional options for issue tracking

[Josh Elser]

On 2/15/18 12:28 PM, Christopher wrote:

Want to spin out a DISCUSS on the desire to switch, Mike Walch? That
seems to me like it should be the next step.


I thought that's what we were doing.:)


This isn't tagged with DISCUSS in the subject (which I know some 
subscribers of our list filter on) and this thread is convoluted 
already. The intent of this discussion isn't cut-dry like it could be.

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

[Josh Elser]

On 2/15/18 11:26 AM, Keith Turner wrote:

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Josh Elser  wrote:

We tell users that try to file issues on the "unsupported" issue tracker
that they've created the issue in the wrong place and point them to the
right issue tracker.


Personally I think that is ok for a short period.  Its like driving on
a road during construction, you know annoyance is unavoidable.
However no one wants to drive on a road that under construction
indefinitely.  So if we start on this I would like consensus that we
plan to  transition from Jira to Github in a timely manner.   I don't
think we should try to figure everything out before we start though.
I think it would be good to have a simple starting plan and we hill
climb from there in search of a more optimal way of operating.

I don't like the idea of enabling github issue with no consensus  that
the goal is to transition away from Jira.  Leaving things in that
state for a long period seems bad to me.

If we start with the consensus to transition, its possible we may
decide not to and that ok.  I don't think any action needs to be taken
now for that eventuality. We can figure that out as we go during the
transition period.


+1 on all of this.

Want to spin out a DISCUSS on the desire to switch, Mike Walch? That 
seems to me like it should be the next step.

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

[Keith Turner]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Josh Elser  wrote:
> We tell users that try to file issues on the "unsupported" issue tracker
> that they've created the issue in the wrong place and point them to the
> right issue tracker.

Personally I think that is ok for a short period.  Its like driving on
a road during construction, you know annoyance is unavoidable.
However no one wants to drive on a road that under construction
indefinitely.  So if we start on this I would like consensus that we
plan to  transition from Jira to Github in a timely manner.   I don't
think we should try to figure everything out before we start though.
I think it would be good to have a simple starting plan and we hill
climb from there in search of a more optimal way of operating.

I don't like the idea of enabling github issue with no consensus  that
the goal is to transition away from Jira.  Leaving things in that
state for a long period seems bad to me.

If we start with the consensus to transition, its possible we may
decide not to and that ok.  I don't think any action needs to be taken
now for that eventuality. We can figure that out as we go during the
transition period.


>
>
> On 2/14/18 10:29 PM, Christopher wrote:
>>
>> Can you elaborate on what kind of human controls you mean? What if a user
>> finds the GH issues and creates an issue there? What action should the
>> developers take?
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:27 PM Josh Elser  wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't ask for automated controls here -- human controls are fine.
>>>
>>> I have already said I am -1 on two concurrent issue trackers. If
>>> developers want to evaluate them, that's fine.
>>>
>>> On 2/14/18 10:12 PM, Christopher wrote:

 I don't think we have the ability to lock out non-committers from
>>>
>>> creating

 new GH issues if we enable them, nor do I think it would make sense to
 do
 so, since that's a valuable use case to consider during any trial period
 before shutting off JIRA.

 As for switching immediately to GH issues for non-primary repo
 (-website,
 -examples, -docker, etc...) I think that makes sense since those are
 already confusing when filed in the JIRA mixed in with the main repo's
 issues.

 On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 9:25 PM Josh Elser  wrote:

> I am OK with committers ONLY using GH issues on all repos (with clear
> guidance as to what the heck the project is doing) or doing a
> full-switch on the other repos.
>
> On 2/14/18 7:00 PM, Mike Miller wrote:
>>
>> We could do a trial period of GitHub issues for the accumulo sub-repos
>> (accumulo-website, accumulo-examples...) then after a month or two
>>>
>>> decide
>>
>> to switch or not.  That way we won't have duplicate issues or the
>
> confusion
>>
>> of having 2 trackers for one repository.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Mike Walch  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 I think it makes sense to try out GitHub before shutting off JIRA.
>
> This
>>>
>>> period could be limited to a month or two.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Christopher 
>
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
 What if we had an interim transition period, tentatively using
 GitHub
>
> to

 determine it's suitability for our workflows, and shut off JIRA
>>>
>>> later?


 On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:51 PM Josh Elser 
>>>
>>> wrote:


> I disagree with Mike in that I don't find JIRA to be so painful
> that
>
> it
>
> necessitates us changing, but I wouldn't block a move to GH issues
>>>
>>> if
>>>
>>> we
>
> turn off our JIRA use.
>
> On 2/14/18 4:29 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
>>
>> @josh - How do you feel about move from JIRA to GH Issues
>>>
>>> completely?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Josh Elser 
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I believe I already stated -1 the last time this was brought up.
>>>
>>> Using two issue trackers is silly.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/14/18 3:30 PM, Mike Walch wrote:
>>>
 I want to enable GitHub issues for Accumulo's repos. This is not
>>>
>>> to

 replace
 JIRA but to give contributors more options for issue tracking.
>>>
>>> Unless

 there
 are objections, I will create an infra ticket this week.


>>
>

>>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

[Marc]

The organic solution seems to have arisen from the Apache Software
Foundation by way of their issue tracking system.

Others have stated concerns already, so aside from doing this "for the
people," would this also address a problem?

"The contribution workflow using Jira is longer and more painful than the
workflow using GitHub issues. This is not a big deal for large
contributions but it adds up when you make a lot of small contributions.
Creating a Jira account and using Jira is also a roadblock for Apache
newbies. We should make it as easy as possible to contribute to Accumulo."

This implies that JIRA is an impediment to contributions in some way. Do we
think this will help solve that problem? Is that a real or imagined
impediment to progress?

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Josh Elser  wrote:

> We tell users that try to file issues on the "unsupported" issue tracker
> that they've created the issue in the wrong place and point them to the
> right issue tracker.
>
>
> On 2/14/18 10:29 PM, Christopher wrote:
>
>> Can you elaborate on what kind of human controls you mean? What if a user
>> finds the GH issues and creates an issue there? What action should the
>> developers take?
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:27 PM Josh Elser  wrote:
>>
>> I didn't ask for automated controls here -- human controls are fine.
>>>
>>> I have already said I am -1 on two concurrent issue trackers. If
>>> developers want to evaluate them, that's fine.
>>>
>>> On 2/14/18 10:12 PM, Christopher wrote:
>>>
 I don't think we have the ability to lock out non-committers from

>>> creating
>>>
 new GH issues if we enable them, nor do I think it would make sense to
 do
 so, since that's a valuable use case to consider during any trial period
 before shutting off JIRA.

 As for switching immediately to GH issues for non-primary repo
 (-website,
 -examples, -docker, etc...) I think that makes sense since those are
 already confusing when filed in the JIRA mixed in with the main repo's
 issues.

 On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 9:25 PM Josh Elser  wrote:

 I am OK with committers ONLY using GH issues on all repos (with clear
> guidance as to what the heck the project is doing) or doing a
> full-switch on the other repos.
>
> On 2/14/18 7:00 PM, Mike Miller wrote:
>
>> We could do a trial period of GitHub issues for the accumulo sub-repos
>> (accumulo-website, accumulo-examples...) then after a month or two
>>
> decide
>>>
 to switch or not.  That way we won't have duplicate issues or the
>>
> confusion
>
>> of having 2 trackers for one repository.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Mike Walch 
>> wrote:
>>
>> +1 I think it makes sense to try out GitHub before shutting off JIRA.
>>>
>> This
>
>> period could be limited to a month or two.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Christopher 
>>>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>>> What if we had an interim transition period, tentatively using GitHub

>>> to
>
>> determine it's suitability for our workflows, and shut off JIRA

>>> later?
>>>

 On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:51 PM Josh Elser 

>>> wrote:
>>>

 I disagree with Mike in that I don't find JIRA to be so painful that
>
 it
>
>> necessitates us changing, but I wouldn't block a move to GH issues
>
 if
>>>
 we
>>>
 turn off our JIRA use.
>
> On 2/14/18 4:29 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
>
>> @josh - How do you feel about move from JIRA to GH Issues
>>
> completely?
>>>

>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Josh Elser 
>>
> wrote:
>>>

>> I believe I already stated -1 the last time this was brought up.
>>>
>>> Using two issue trackers is silly.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/14/18 3:30 PM, Mike Walch wrote:
>>>
>>> I want to enable GitHub issues for Accumulo's repos. This is not

>>> to
>>>
 replace
 JIRA but to give contributors more options for issue tracking.

>>> Unless
>>>
 there
 are objections, I will create an infra ticket this week.



>>
>

>>>
>>
>

>>>
>>

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

[Josh Elser]

We tell users that try to file issues on the "unsupported" issue tracker 
that they've created the issue in the wrong place and point them to the 
right issue tracker.


On 2/14/18 10:29 PM, Christopher wrote:

Can you elaborate on what kind of human controls you mean? What if a user
finds the GH issues and creates an issue there? What action should the
developers take?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:27 PM Josh Elser  wrote:


I didn't ask for automated controls here -- human controls are fine.

I have already said I am -1 on two concurrent issue trackers. If
developers want to evaluate them, that's fine.

On 2/14/18 10:12 PM, Christopher wrote:

I don't think we have the ability to lock out non-committers from

creating

new GH issues if we enable them, nor do I think it would make sense to do
so, since that's a valuable use case to consider during any trial period
before shutting off JIRA.

As for switching immediately to GH issues for non-primary repo (-website,
-examples, -docker, etc...) I think that makes sense since those are
already confusing when filed in the JIRA mixed in with the main repo's
issues.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 9:25 PM Josh Elser  wrote:


I am OK with committers ONLY using GH issues on all repos (with clear
guidance as to what the heck the project is doing) or doing a
full-switch on the other repos.

On 2/14/18 7:00 PM, Mike Miller wrote:

We could do a trial period of GitHub issues for the accumulo sub-repos
(accumulo-website, accumulo-examples...) then after a month or two

decide

to switch or not.  That way we won't have duplicate issues or the

confusion

of having 2 trackers for one repository.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Mike Walch  wrote:


+1 I think it makes sense to try out GitHub before shutting off JIRA.

This

period could be limited to a month or two.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Christopher 

wrote:



What if we had an interim transition period, tentatively using GitHub

to

determine it's suitability for our workflows, and shut off JIRA

later?


On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:51 PM Josh Elser 

wrote:



I disagree with Mike in that I don't find JIRA to be so painful that

it

necessitates us changing, but I wouldn't block a move to GH issues

if

we

turn off our JIRA use.

On 2/14/18 4:29 PM, Mike Drob wrote:

@josh - How do you feel about move from JIRA to GH Issues

completely?


On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Josh Elser 

wrote:



I believe I already stated -1 the last time this was brought up.

Using two issue trackers is silly.


On 2/14/18 3:30 PM, Mike Walch wrote:


I want to enable GitHub issues for Accumulo's repos. This is not

to

replace
JIRA but to give contributors more options for issue tracking.

Unless

there
are objections, I will create an infra ticket this week.

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

[Mike Walch]

The goal of my initial email was enable to GH issues and let the project
organically decide to use it or not. If it became heavily used, we could
turn off Jira and move over open issues. If problems arose with GH issues,
we could move open GH issues back to Jira and disable it. If people don't
want two issue trackers, we could hold a vote and pick one but I am a fan
of letting the active contributors decide this over time by their choice of
tool on a daily basis.

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:07 AM, Ed Coleman <d...@etcoleman.com> wrote:

> Not sure where to jump in on this thread, but, I do not have any
> preference for one tool or the other at this point - but would really just
> want one.  My concerns:
>
> Would we export the current Jira issues to GH Issues? Would we ""lose""
> past history, or would I need to search one tool or two to see if a
> previous issue was opened or addressed. Would we, at a minimum, port open
> issues to the new tool?
>
> Are we putting too many eggs in a single GH basket - what if we wanted /
> needed to switch repositories in the future for any reason?
>
> Would this make it harder for others that are using other Apache projects
> (say HADOOP, ZOOKEEPER) to determine, report or track issues across
> multiple projects? What if they are contributors? Are there now different
> work-flows for Accumulo than for other Apache projects? Does it make
> contributing to Accumulo easier, harder, different?
>
> I'm not opposed to a change if there are clear, demonstrable benefits
> beyond personal preferences - but I also have an affinity to continuity and
> consistency.
>
> Ed Coleman
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb...@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 6:00 PM
> To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Additional options for issue tracking
>
> What if we had an interim transition period, tentatively using GitHub to
> determine it's suitability for our workflows, and shut off JIRA later?
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:51 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I disagree with Mike in that I don't find JIRA to be so painful that
> > it necessitates us changing, but I wouldn't block a move to GH issues
> > if we turn off our JIRA use.
> >
> > On 2/14/18 4:29 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> > > @josh - How do you feel about move from JIRA to GH Issues completely?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I believe I already stated -1 the last time this was brought up.
> > >>
> > >> Using two issue trackers is silly.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 2/14/18 3:30 PM, Mike Walch wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I want to enable GitHub issues for Accumulo's repos. This is not
> > >>> to replace JIRA but to give contributors more options for issue
> > >>> tracking. Unless there are objections, I will create an infra
> > >>> ticket this week.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> >
>
>

RE: Additional options for issue tracking

[Ed Coleman]

Not sure where to jump in on this thread, but, I do not have any preference for 
one tool or the other at this point - but would really just want one.  My 
concerns:

Would we export the current Jira issues to GH Issues? Would we ""lose"" past 
history, or would I need to search one tool or two to see if a previous issue 
was opened or addressed. Would we, at a minimum, port open issues to the new 
tool?

Are we putting too many eggs in a single GH basket - what if we wanted / needed 
to switch repositories in the future for any reason?

Would this make it harder for others that are using other Apache projects (say 
HADOOP, ZOOKEEPER) to determine, report or track issues across multiple 
projects? What if they are contributors? Are there now different work-flows for 
Accumulo than for other Apache projects? Does it make contributing to Accumulo 
easier, harder, different?

I'm not opposed to a change if there are clear, demonstrable benefits beyond 
personal preferences - but I also have an affinity to continuity and 
consistency.

Ed Coleman

-Original Message-
From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb...@apache.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 6:00 PM
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Additional options for issue tracking

What if we had an interim transition period, tentatively using GitHub to 
determine it's suitability for our workflows, and shut off JIRA later?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:51 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote:

> I disagree with Mike in that I don't find JIRA to be so painful that 
> it necessitates us changing, but I wouldn't block a move to GH issues 
> if we turn off our JIRA use.
>
> On 2/14/18 4:29 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> > @josh - How do you feel about move from JIRA to GH Issues completely?
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I believe I already stated -1 the last time this was brought up.
> >>
> >> Using two issue trackers is silly.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2/14/18 3:30 PM, Mike Walch wrote:
> >>
> >>> I want to enable GitHub issues for Accumulo's repos. This is not 
> >>> to replace JIRA but to give contributors more options for issue 
> >>> tracking. Unless there are objections, I will create an infra 
> >>> ticket this week.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

[Christopher]

Can you elaborate on what kind of human controls you mean? What if a user
finds the GH issues and creates an issue there? What action should the
developers take?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:27 PM Josh Elser  wrote:

> I didn't ask for automated controls here -- human controls are fine.
>
> I have already said I am -1 on two concurrent issue trackers. If
> developers want to evaluate them, that's fine.
>
> On 2/14/18 10:12 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > I don't think we have the ability to lock out non-committers from
> creating
> > new GH issues if we enable them, nor do I think it would make sense to do
> > so, since that's a valuable use case to consider during any trial period
> > before shutting off JIRA.
> >
> > As for switching immediately to GH issues for non-primary repo (-website,
> > -examples, -docker, etc...) I think that makes sense since those are
> > already confusing when filed in the JIRA mixed in with the main repo's
> > issues.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 9:25 PM Josh Elser  wrote:
> >
> >> I am OK with committers ONLY using GH issues on all repos (with clear
> >> guidance as to what the heck the project is doing) or doing a
> >> full-switch on the other repos.
> >>
> >> On 2/14/18 7:00 PM, Mike Miller wrote:
> >>> We could do a trial period of GitHub issues for the accumulo sub-repos
> >>> (accumulo-website, accumulo-examples...) then after a month or two
> decide
> >>> to switch or not.  That way we won't have duplicate issues or the
> >> confusion
> >>> of having 2 trackers for one repository.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Mike Walch  wrote:
> >>>
>  +1 I think it makes sense to try out GitHub before shutting off JIRA.
> >> This
>  period could be limited to a month or two.
> 
>  On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Christopher 
> >> wrote:
> 
> > What if we had an interim transition period, tentatively using GitHub
> >> to
> > determine it's suitability for our workflows, and shut off JIRA
> later?
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:51 PM Josh Elser 
> wrote:
> >
> >> I disagree with Mike in that I don't find JIRA to be so painful that
> >> it
> >> necessitates us changing, but I wouldn't block a move to GH issues
> if
>  we
> >> turn off our JIRA use.
> >>
> >> On 2/14/18 4:29 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> >>> @josh - How do you feel about move from JIRA to GH Issues
> completely?
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Josh Elser 
>  wrote:
> >>>
>  I believe I already stated -1 the last time this was brought up.
> 
>  Using two issue trackers is silly.
> 
> 
>  On 2/14/18 3:30 PM, Mike Walch wrote:
> 
> > I want to enable GitHub issues for Accumulo's repos. This is not
> to
> > replace
> > JIRA but to give contributors more options for issue tracking.
>  Unless
> > there
> > are objections, I will create an infra ticket this week.
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>
> >
> 
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

[Josh Elser]

I didn't ask for automated controls here -- human controls are fine.

I have already said I am -1 on two concurrent issue trackers. If 
developers want to evaluate them, that's fine.


On 2/14/18 10:12 PM, Christopher wrote:

I don't think we have the ability to lock out non-committers from creating
new GH issues if we enable them, nor do I think it would make sense to do
so, since that's a valuable use case to consider during any trial period
before shutting off JIRA.

As for switching immediately to GH issues for non-primary repo (-website,
-examples, -docker, etc...) I think that makes sense since those are
already confusing when filed in the JIRA mixed in with the main repo's
issues.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 9:25 PM Josh Elser  wrote:


I am OK with committers ONLY using GH issues on all repos (with clear
guidance as to what the heck the project is doing) or doing a
full-switch on the other repos.

On 2/14/18 7:00 PM, Mike Miller wrote:

We could do a trial period of GitHub issues for the accumulo sub-repos
(accumulo-website, accumulo-examples...) then after a month or two decide
to switch or not.  That way we won't have duplicate issues or the

confusion

of having 2 trackers for one repository.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Mike Walch  wrote:


+1 I think it makes sense to try out GitHub before shutting off JIRA.

This

period could be limited to a month or two.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Christopher 

wrote:



What if we had an interim transition period, tentatively using GitHub

to

determine it's suitability for our workflows, and shut off JIRA later?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:51 PM Josh Elser  wrote:


I disagree with Mike in that I don't find JIRA to be so painful that

it

necessitates us changing, but I wouldn't block a move to GH issues if

we

turn off our JIRA use.

On 2/14/18 4:29 PM, Mike Drob wrote:

@josh - How do you feel about move from JIRA to GH Issues completely?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Josh Elser 

wrote:



I believe I already stated -1 the last time this was brought up.

Using two issue trackers is silly.


On 2/14/18 3:30 PM, Mike Walch wrote:


I want to enable GitHub issues for Accumulo's repos. This is not to
replace
JIRA but to give contributors more options for issue tracking.

Unless

there
are objections, I will create an infra ticket this week.

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

[Christopher]

I don't think we have the ability to lock out non-committers from creating
new GH issues if we enable them, nor do I think it would make sense to do
so, since that's a valuable use case to consider during any trial period
before shutting off JIRA.

As for switching immediately to GH issues for non-primary repo (-website,
-examples, -docker, etc...) I think that makes sense since those are
already confusing when filed in the JIRA mixed in with the main repo's
issues.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 9:25 PM Josh Elser  wrote:

> I am OK with committers ONLY using GH issues on all repos (with clear
> guidance as to what the heck the project is doing) or doing a
> full-switch on the other repos.
>
> On 2/14/18 7:00 PM, Mike Miller wrote:
> > We could do a trial period of GitHub issues for the accumulo sub-repos
> > (accumulo-website, accumulo-examples...) then after a month or two decide
> > to switch or not.  That way we won't have duplicate issues or the
> confusion
> > of having 2 trackers for one repository.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Mike Walch  wrote:
> >
> >> +1 I think it makes sense to try out GitHub before shutting off JIRA.
> This
> >> period could be limited to a month or two.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Christopher 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> What if we had an interim transition period, tentatively using GitHub
> to
> >>> determine it's suitability for our workflows, and shut off JIRA later?
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:51 PM Josh Elser  wrote:
> >>>
>  I disagree with Mike in that I don't find JIRA to be so painful that
> it
>  necessitates us changing, but I wouldn't block a move to GH issues if
> >> we
>  turn off our JIRA use.
> 
>  On 2/14/18 4:29 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> > @josh - How do you feel about move from JIRA to GH Issues completely?
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Josh Elser 
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> I believe I already stated -1 the last time this was brought up.
> >>
> >> Using two issue trackers is silly.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2/14/18 3:30 PM, Mike Walch wrote:
> >>
> >>> I want to enable GitHub issues for Accumulo's repos. This is not to
> >>> replace
> >>> JIRA but to give contributors more options for issue tracking.
> >> Unless
> >>> there
> >>> are objections, I will create an infra ticket this week.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> 
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

[Josh Elser]

I am OK with committers ONLY using GH issues on all repos (with clear 
guidance as to what the heck the project is doing) or doing a 
full-switch on the other repos.


On 2/14/18 7:00 PM, Mike Miller wrote:

We could do a trial period of GitHub issues for the accumulo sub-repos
(accumulo-website, accumulo-examples...) then after a month or two decide
to switch or not.  That way we won't have duplicate issues or the confusion
of having 2 trackers for one repository.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Mike Walch  wrote:


+1 I think it makes sense to try out GitHub before shutting off JIRA. This
period could be limited to a month or two.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Christopher  wrote:


What if we had an interim transition period, tentatively using GitHub to
determine it's suitability for our workflows, and shut off JIRA later?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:51 PM Josh Elser  wrote:


I disagree with Mike in that I don't find JIRA to be so painful that it
necessitates us changing, but I wouldn't block a move to GH issues if

we

turn off our JIRA use.

On 2/14/18 4:29 PM, Mike Drob wrote:

@josh - How do you feel about move from JIRA to GH Issues completely?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Josh Elser 

wrote:



I believe I already stated -1 the last time this was brought up.

Using two issue trackers is silly.


On 2/14/18 3:30 PM, Mike Walch wrote:


I want to enable GitHub issues for Accumulo's repos. This is not to
replace
JIRA but to give contributors more options for issue tracking.

Unless

there
are objections, I will create an infra ticket this week.

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

[Mike Miller]

We could do a trial period of GitHub issues for the accumulo sub-repos
(accumulo-website, accumulo-examples...) then after a month or two decide
to switch or not.  That way we won't have duplicate issues or the confusion
of having 2 trackers for one repository.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Mike Walch  wrote:

> +1 I think it makes sense to try out GitHub before shutting off JIRA. This
> period could be limited to a month or two.
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Christopher  wrote:
>
> > What if we had an interim transition period, tentatively using GitHub to
> > determine it's suitability for our workflows, and shut off JIRA later?
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:51 PM Josh Elser  wrote:
> >
> > > I disagree with Mike in that I don't find JIRA to be so painful that it
> > > necessitates us changing, but I wouldn't block a move to GH issues if
> we
> > > turn off our JIRA use.
> > >
> > > On 2/14/18 4:29 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> > > > @josh - How do you feel about move from JIRA to GH Issues completely?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Josh Elser 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I believe I already stated -1 the last time this was brought up.
> > > >>
> > > >> Using two issue trackers is silly.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 2/14/18 3:30 PM, Mike Walch wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I want to enable GitHub issues for Accumulo's repos. This is not to
> > > >>> replace
> > > >>> JIRA but to give contributors more options for issue tracking.
> Unless
> > > >>> there
> > > >>> are objections, I will create an infra ticket this week.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

[Mike Walch]

+1 I think it makes sense to try out GitHub before shutting off JIRA. This
period could be limited to a month or two.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Christopher  wrote:

> What if we had an interim transition period, tentatively using GitHub to
> determine it's suitability for our workflows, and shut off JIRA later?
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:51 PM Josh Elser  wrote:
>
> > I disagree with Mike in that I don't find JIRA to be so painful that it
> > necessitates us changing, but I wouldn't block a move to GH issues if we
> > turn off our JIRA use.
> >
> > On 2/14/18 4:29 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> > > @josh - How do you feel about move from JIRA to GH Issues completely?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Josh Elser  wrote:
> > >
> > >> I believe I already stated -1 the last time this was brought up.
> > >>
> > >> Using two issue trackers is silly.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 2/14/18 3:30 PM, Mike Walch wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I want to enable GitHub issues for Accumulo's repos. This is not to
> > >>> replace
> > >>> JIRA but to give contributors more options for issue tracking. Unless
> > >>> there
> > >>> are objections, I will create an infra ticket this week.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> >
>

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

[Christopher]

What if we had an interim transition period, tentatively using GitHub to
determine it's suitability for our workflows, and shut off JIRA later?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:51 PM Josh Elser  wrote:

> I disagree with Mike in that I don't find JIRA to be so painful that it
> necessitates us changing, but I wouldn't block a move to GH issues if we
> turn off our JIRA use.
>
> On 2/14/18 4:29 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> > @josh - How do you feel about move from JIRA to GH Issues completely?
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Josh Elser  wrote:
> >
> >> I believe I already stated -1 the last time this was brought up.
> >>
> >> Using two issue trackers is silly.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2/14/18 3:30 PM, Mike Walch wrote:
> >>
> >>> I want to enable GitHub issues for Accumulo's repos. This is not to
> >>> replace
> >>> JIRA but to give contributors more options for issue tracking. Unless
> >>> there
> >>> are objections, I will create an infra ticket this week.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

[Josh Elser]

I disagree with Mike in that I don't find JIRA to be so painful that it 
necessitates us changing, but I wouldn't block a move to GH issues if we 
turn off our JIRA use.


On 2/14/18 4:29 PM, Mike Drob wrote:

@josh - How do you feel about move from JIRA to GH Issues completely?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Josh Elser  wrote:


I believe I already stated -1 the last time this was brought up.

Using two issue trackers is silly.


On 2/14/18 3:30 PM, Mike Walch wrote:


I want to enable GitHub issues for Accumulo's repos. This is not to
replace
JIRA but to give contributors more options for issue tracking. Unless
there
are objections, I will create an infra ticket this week.

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

[Christopher]

Nobody thought it was silly when we were using more than one review
mechanism (reviewboard + GitHub + comments on patches attached to JIRA).
I don't think enabling the feature is the same as mandating anybody use it,
especially for the secondary repos like the website, the docker repo, and
examples.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:26 PM Josh Elser  wrote:

> I believe I already stated -1 the last time this was brought up.
>
> Using two issue trackers is silly.
>
> On 2/14/18 3:30 PM, Mike Walch wrote:
> > I want to enable GitHub issues for Accumulo's repos. This is not to
> replace
> > JIRA but to give contributors more options for issue tracking. Unless
> there
> > are objections, I will create an infra ticket this week.
> >
>

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

[Christopher]

+1 to enabling the feature... so we can see how it works, and especially so
we can use it with the sub-project repos, like the website and examples,
whose issues are confusing when mixed in with the main Accumulo repo's
issues.

I'm not in favor of mandating a switch to using these GitHub features...
but I'm a strong +1 to enabling it to see how things go.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:31 PM Mike Walch  wrote:

> I want to enable GitHub issues for Accumulo's repos. This is not to replace
> JIRA but to give contributors more options for issue tracking. Unless there
> are objections, I will create an infra ticket this week.
>

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

[Mike Drob]

@josh - How do you feel about move from JIRA to GH Issues completely?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Josh Elser  wrote:

> I believe I already stated -1 the last time this was brought up.
>
> Using two issue trackers is silly.
>
>
> On 2/14/18 3:30 PM, Mike Walch wrote:
>
>> I want to enable GitHub issues for Accumulo's repos. This is not to
>> replace
>> JIRA but to give contributors more options for issue tracking. Unless
>> there
>> are objections, I will create an infra ticket this week.
>>
>>

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

[Josh Elser]

I believe I already stated -1 the last time this was brought up.

Using two issue trackers is silly.

On 2/14/18 3:30 PM, Mike Walch wrote:

I want to enable GitHub issues for Accumulo's repos. This is not to replace
JIRA but to give contributors more options for issue tracking. Unless there
are objections, I will create an infra ticket this week.

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

[Mike Walch]

The contribution workflow using Jira is longer and more painful than the
workflow using GitHub issues. This is not a big deal for large
contributions but it adds up when you make a lot of small contributions.
Creating a Jira account and using Jira is also a roadblock for Apache
newbies. We should make it as easy as possible to contribute to Accumulo.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:46 PM, Michael Wall  wrote:

> While I love github issues, I do have concerns about 2 separate issue
> tracking systems.  Can you elaborate on what you are trying to solve?
> Let's make sure we give everyone time to discuss before making this change.
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:31 PM Mike Walch  wrote:
>
> > I want to enable GitHub issues for Accumulo's repos. This is not to
> replace
> > JIRA but to give contributors more options for issue tracking. Unless
> there
> > are objections, I will create an infra ticket this week.
> >
>

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

[Michael Wall]

While I love github issues, I do have concerns about 2 separate issue
tracking systems.  Can you elaborate on what you are trying to solve?
Let's make sure we give everyone time to discuss before making this change.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:31 PM Mike Walch  wrote:

> I want to enable GitHub issues for Accumulo's repos. This is not to replace
> JIRA but to give contributors more options for issue tracking. Unless there
> are objections, I will create an infra ticket this week.
>