accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Walch <mwa...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial
Date Thu, 01 Mar 2018 22:14:03 GMT
> You're planning to document how GitHub tech would be used to make
releases on these repositories? And, we're in agreement that JIRA would not
be used at all for these repositories?

I think these repos are simple but I am happy to document any GH issues
workflows that are unclear to contributors. The use of GH issues for these
repos can be made clear at https://accumulo.apache.org/how-to-contribute/

I agree that JIRA should no longer be used for the secondary repositories.
Anyone who makes a new JIRA issue for these repos can just be told to use
GitHub instead.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:40 PM, Josh Elser <elserj@apache.org> wrote:

> After the rest of the discussion, I feel like I need to be explicit (so,
> I'm sorry if I'm being pedantic and we're already in agreement here):
>
> You're planning to document how GitHub tech would be used to make releases
> on these repositories? And, we're in agreement that JIRA would not be used
> at all for these repositories?
>
> In short, +0 as long as the process for releasing software is clear, I
> don't have issues with the process using different tooling than we
> presently use (although, still don't see the benefit to changing).
>
>
> On 3/1/18 2:41 PM, Mike Walch 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