accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox
Date Fri, 05 May 2017 23:52:56 GMT
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:09 PM Josh Elser <> wrote:

> (just making sure my point is clear and that Mike's is another unique
> point that I hadn't actually considered..)
> I meant confusion about what information would be encapsulated in JIRA
> and what information would be encapsulated in GH metadata.
> e.g. we missed issue $x in the 2.x.x. release notes because it had the
> "releasenotes" GH label and not a "releasenotes" JIRA label (or vice
> versa). I think a similar issue would come up with "fixVersion" and
> "milestone".
> Our use of JIRA is pretty well hashed out, and I think it works well for
> us. To my earlier point, without a specific hole in our current process,
> this just seems likely to create confusion about how to use it. The
> points you referenced to me don't seem virulent enough to justify the
> switch.
I agree with your point about confusion, and about our current workflow
working well for us as is. But, I'm always looking for opportunities to
improve. The way I saw it was that these features wouldn't be changing our
workflow, but adding to it, providing us with the opportunity to experiment
and discover new things which could benefit our workflow. (But also, I just
wanted to query PRs.)

I don't want to force our workflow to change. That's why I didn't suggest
any changes to it, such as using GH issues or any specific labeling scheme.
I don't have data on what would work yet. I actually spend a lot of time
reinforcing our existing workflow by triage'ing JIRA issues daily and,
recently, reminding people to close JIRA issues when PR work is done. So,
I'm certainly not interested in arbitrarily disrupting the workflow which
works. But, I don't want us to stagnate and cut ourselves off from
opportunities to evolve our workflow organically, either.

Like I said, I'm fine with waiting until GitBox matures a bit. I don't
query PRs often enough for that to be a sticking point, and obviously,
there isn't consensus yet on whether the opportunity to experiment with
these features outweighs the disruption of the URL change.

Personally, I'd prefer INFRA just automatically move *all* git projects to
GitBox, so everybody automatically benefits, and nobody is negatively
impacted at all (assuming URL redirects are put in place to keep things
working seamlessly). But, I don't think they're going to do that. (I asked,
but no response from infra yet about its plans.)

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message