accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Date Tue, 06 Mar 2018 15:18:27 GMT
I'm -0.

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> Asking if he's -0 or -1.
>
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018, 11:08 Sean Busbey <busbey@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Are you asking if Mike is "-0" vs "-1"? Or just if he has an opposition
> at
> > all?
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2018/03/02 01:10:16, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Is your concern significant enough to oppose the proposed action from
> > Mike
> > > Walch?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018, 19:56 Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > My only concern is of the sort that contributors will be expected to
> > have
> > > > different workflows based on what they are working on.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Mike Walch <mwalch@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I would like to start up this discussion again. I don't think we
> have
> > > > > reached consensus on moving the primary Accumulo repo to GitHub
> > issues.
> > > > The
> > > > > primary repo has common workflows (i.e creating issues that affect
> > > > multiple
> > > > > versions) that don't easily transition to GitHub issues. I have
> heard
> > > > > several solutions but no consensus.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for moving our secondary repos (listed below), this seems much
> > easier
> > > > > and I haven't heard any concerns so far. Does anyone have concerns
> > about
> > > > > moving these repos?
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-examples
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-testing
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-wikisearch
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Mike Walch <mwalch@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable
with a
> > trial.
> > > > How
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > do a release? What does aggregating issues fixed in
a
> > particular
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > look like?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can tag GH issues with a version but I think it's best
to
> > just go
> > > > > > > through commit history
> > > > > > > to compile the release notes. This should already be done
as
> > there is
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > guarantee
> > > > > > > even with Jira that all issues were labeled correctly.
If you
> are
> > > > using
> > > > > > > GitHub issues, all issue
> > > > > > > numbers in commits link back to the issue or pull request
which
> > we
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > have with Jira right
> > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > This gets to an issue I have. What's our source of truth about
"X
> > is
> > > > > fixed
> > > > > > in Y" during the trial? I have been assuming that JIRA is
> > currently our
> > > > > > source of truth, but maybe that's wrong. Is it the release notes?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IMHO, Git is a poor choice for the source of truth due to the
> > > > > immutability
> > > > > > of commit messages, at least in ASF contexts since we can't
do
> > force
> > > > > pushes
> > > > > > (in at least some branches).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > busbey
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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