accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Miller <michaelpmil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox
Date Fri, 05 May 2017 20:15:25 GMT
I think there are many benefits already mentioned that would make it worth
the switch.  I would add frames to the list of annoyances in JIRA.

> I think having relevant project tracking information shared across two
separate systems is a recipe for disaster.

This sounds like our current setup... GitHub + JIRA no?  If we had an easy
to migrate open issues than JIRA just becomes an archive.  Might be a good
chance to clean up old tickets too.

> Given the overall "low" activity on the project, I don't see a point in
disrupting what has been working for us and what the gray-beards are used
to doing.

I would argue this as a reason to switch - more convenience for new
developers should be a priority over propagating the habits of current
developers.

> without a specific hole in our current process, this just seems likely to
create confusion about how to use it.

I agree, there would be confusion at first and an adjustment period (like
any change would require).  I would also agree there aren't holes in the
current process but this change wouldn't fill a hole, it would fix flaws in
the process.  Requiring 2 accounts and unnecessary copy and pasting between
the sites are flaws in the process.

Does GitHub issues have custom filters?  If not, then that is one thing we
would lose.  But these may not be needed if it just works better.

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Mike Walch <mwalch@apache.org> wrote:

> I prefer GithHub issues over JIRA. Apache JIRA is slow, has a bloated UI,
> and it's annoying that it doesn't remember my session and I have to
> re-login daily. I think new developers (esp those unfamiliar with Apache)
> are more likely to report/work on issues if they were on GitHub as most
> non-Apache projects use GitHub and Apache JIRA requires an extra account.
> I understand two issue trackers can be pain (esp for the person creating
> release notes) but I would rather encourage more issue reporting and
> contributions then speed up the process of creating release notes. We could
> also move over the remaining open JIRA issues if GH issues became more
> heavily used.
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:09 PM Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> 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.
> >
> > Mike Drob wrote:
> > > Changing the repo URL seems fairly disruptive to me, fwiw. Would need
> to
> > > send notice to the dev list with instructions how to update your git
> > > remotes probably.
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 5, 2017, 10:30 AM Christopher<ctubbsii@apache.org>  wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:50 AM Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Christopher wrote:
> > >>>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:09 PM Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>> Christopher wrote:
> > >>>>>> Hi all, it looks like https://gitbox.apache.org is up and
> running.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>    From what I understand, this provides bi-directional
mirroring
> > >>> between
> > >>>>>> GitHub repos and ASF repos, and would allow us to manage
GitHub
> > >> issues
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>>> PRs by adding labels and milestones to them.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Personally, I think this would be helpful, especially as
we use
> > >> GitHub
> > >>>>> more
> > >>>>>> and more for pull requests / code reviews.
> > >>>>> Github's review interface is my favored method of code review,
but
> it
> > >>>>> seems like you're also suggesting that we adopt GH issues (or
is
> that
> > >>>>> just some passing comment about Gitbox functionality?). I think
our
> > >>>>> current process of JIRA and Github works just fine.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Agreed, it does work fine. I'm not suggesting we adopt GH issues.
> But,
> > >> if
> > >>>> we ever did, this would be a prerequisite to using GH issues
> > >> effectively.
> > >>>> I personally prefer GH issues over JIRA, but if I were to propose
> > that,
> > >>> it
> > >>>> would be after we've adjusted to this switch, and I would suggest
we
> > do
> > >>> it
> > >>>> gradually and organically... similar to how we transitioned from
RB
> to
> > >> GH
> > >>>> for reviews. Technically, we still have RB, but we just don't use
it
> > >>>> because GH is better.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In any case, I'm not proposing we start using GH issues, or even
> make
> > >> it
> > >>> an
> > >>>> option, right now. For now, I'm just thinking it would benefit
> > >> management
> > >>>> of PRs (among the other, lesser, benefits I list).
> > >>> Ok, migrating to GH issues was just a data point for now.
> > >>>
> > >>>>> What problems do we have as a project which labels and milestones
> > >> would
> > >>>>> solve? Otherwise, this just seems like change for change's
sake.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> I think not being able to add labels and milestones is itself a
> > >> problem.
> > >>> It
> > >>>> makes organizing/tracking/searching PRs harder. Certainly, it's
much
> > >>> harder
> > >>>> to navigate to the corresponding JIRA issue (if one was mentioned),
> > and
> > >>>> view that information there, rather than simply see it on the PR
> > >> itself.
> > >>> I don't agree with the assessment that it's much harder to open the
> > JIRA
> > >>> issue in another browser tab, but perhaps that's just me. I think
> > having
> > >>> relevant project tracking information shared across two separate
> > systems
> > >>> is a recipe for disaster.
> > >>>
> > >>>> In addition to label and milestone, it also lets us use "assignees",
> > >>> which
> > >>>> I think is useful to track committers who are working on merging
the
> > >> PR,
> > >>>> and "projects", which I don't think is very useful.
> > >>> IMO, someone saying "I'm working on merging this" is sufficient.
> > >>>
> > >>>> I think using GitBox would also allow us to close PRs without
> adding a
> > >>>> dummy commit.
> > >>> Might be nice, but doing a dummy commit or asking the author to close
> > it
> > >>> is not onerous.
> > >>>
> > >>>> It would also allow us to push directly to GH and optionally do
> merges
> > >>> and
> > >>>> edits from the GitHub UI, which lowers the bar for committers to
> make
> > >>> small
> > >>>> changes or merge changes. Being able to push directly to GH also
> gives
> > >>> more
> > >>>> options to people who might have a good GH connection, but a poor
> ASF
> > >>>> connection.
> > >>> That would be nice -- GH does have some nice push-button integrations
> > >> here.
> > >>>> It also puts us in a good position to self-service Travis CI and
> other
> > >> GH
> > >>>> apps, as GitBox service matures and INFRA provides more self-service
> > >>>> features.
> > >>> Thanks for listing these points.
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't see this as having sufficient value to disrupt our existing
> > >>> workflow. The points you raised are primarily convenience issues, not
> > >>> flaws in our JIRA workflow. Given the overall "low" activity on the
> > >>> project, I don't see a point in disrupting what has been working for
> us
> > >>> and what the gray-beards are used to doing.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> I guess I just don't see it as much of a disruption. There's the
> > switching
> > >> cost, which is pretty small**, but after that, there's not really any
> > >> downside. We wouldn't lose anything, but would gain some things.
> However
> > >> small they might be, they can add up.
> > >>
> > >> In any case, I'm also fine waiting for now... to see how GitBox
> matures.
> > >> This is actually far more important for Fluo (which uses GH issues)
> than
> > >> for Accumulo. I opened a similar discussion on the Fluo dev list, and
> if
> > >> Fluo switches to GitBox, we can provide feedback here to how it all
> > worked
> > >> out, if we want to revisit this later.
> > >>
> > >> **Just a change in URL for the repo for anybody not actively involved
> in
> > >> working with INFRA to make the switch happen.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>>> If we want to use this, we can put in requests to INFRA
to move
> our
> > >>> repos
> > >>>>>> over to this service rather than the current git service.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> INFRA has responded to my question saying they'll support
use of
> > this
> > >>> on
> > >>>>> a
> > >>>>>> first-come first-serve basis. I think it might be worth
it. Some
> of
> > >> the
> > >>>>>> transition might be self service (GitBox allows PMCs to
set up
> their
> > >>> own
> > >>>>>> repos), but at the very least, we'd have to request INFRA
to add
> our
> > >>> PMC
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>> the list of participating projects and have them remove
the old
> one
> > >>> once
> > >>>>>> the transition is complete.
> > >>>>>>
> > >
> >
>

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