cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rafael Weingärtner <rafaelweingart...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Relax strict requirement of JIRA ID for PRs
Date Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:09:35 GMT
I prefer the workflow in Github as you guy, but to be fair with Jira ticket
system I mentioned it.

@Marc, yes Jira can facilitate a lot the management. However, we do not use
it fully. In our workflow, there is no planning/roadmap for the next
release per se. Things seem to work in an ad-hoc fashion. On the other
hand, when you need to break down milestones into issues/tickets/tasks and
then divide them into sprints, and manage a team of developers, the
oversight provided by Jira system is very good; specially, when issues
start to take more than a single sprint to finish.

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Marc-Aurèle Brothier <marco@exoscale.ch>
wrote:

> @rafael, you said: they all required Jira tickets to track the discussion
> and facilitate the management
>
> I can see the discussion happening in the PR on github, but the Jira ticket
> by itself doesn't do much, except copy/pasting the github discussion. Then
> it's down to "facilitate the management", which I only see as listing the
> changes for a release as far as I know. But this can be achieved on github
> too.
>
> As Daan mentioned, there are those things that are not code related which
> should have a way of tracking. But what's the difference in tracking them
> as a Jira issue vs a Github issue (they can't be a PR)? Those are point of
> view exchanges with messages & links, with a final status, most of the time
> without a strong link to a release number. If they do, they can be added to
> a milestone.
>
> So far I don't see how things done with Jira cannot be achieved on Github.
> It's just a matter of changing habits to simplify the workflow for new
> comers (and old joiners too ;-) ).
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Will, you are speaking my mind; any external registration tool should be
> > based on the source. The only reason for having an external tool without
> > relation to the code is to keep track of what is *not* (or not fully)
> > implemented.
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Rafael Weingärtner <
> > rafaelweingartner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I meant a way of describing them (changes/proposals) further. Sometimes
> > we
> > > have commits only with title, and then the Jira ticket would be a way
> of
> > > documenting that commit. I do prefer the idea of inserting the whole
> > > description in the commit body though. [for me] it looks easier to work
> > > directly with commits and PRs; as you said, we can generate release
> notes
> > > based on commits directly [and issues on GH]. However, for that, we
> need
> > to
> > > fine-tune our workflow.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 8:40 AM, Will Stevens <wstevens@cloudops.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am +1 to relaxing the requirement of Jira ticket.
> > > >
> > > > Rafael, what do you mean when you say "Jira tickets are used to
> > register
> > > > changes"?
> > > >
> > > > I think ever since 4.9 the actual PRs included in the code are the
> > source
> > > > of truth for the changes in the actual code (at least from a release
> > > notes
> > > > perspective).  This is why the release notes can show changes that
> only
> > > > have PRs and no Jira ticket.  At least my release notes generator is
> > > built
> > > > that way.  I think Rohit has built a similar release notes generator,
> > so
> > > I
> > > > can't speak to his version...
> > > >
> > > > *Will Stevens*
> > > > Chief Technology Officer
> > > > c 514.826.0190
> > > >
> > > > <https://goo.gl/NYZ8KK>
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
> > > > rafaelweingartner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Marc, yes Jira tickets are used to register changes. However, what
> > > Rohit
> > > > > and others (including me) are noticing is that there are certain
> > types
> > > of
> > > > > changes (minor/bureaucracy) that do not require Jira tickets. The
> > issue
> > > > is
> > > > > the wording “change”. What consist of a change that is worth
> > mentioning
> > > > in
> > > > > the release notes? Everything we do in a branch is a change
> towards a
> > > > > release, but not everything is useful for operators/administrators
> to
> > > > see.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would say that to fix bugs, introduce new features, extend
> existing
> > > > > features, introduce a major change in the code such as that
> standard
> > > > maven
> > > > > thing that you did, they all required Jira tickets to track the
> > > > discussion
> > > > > and facilitate the management. On the other side of the spectrum,
> we
> > > have
> > > > > things such as removing dead/unused code, opening a new version
> > > (creating
> > > > > the upgrade path that we still use for the DB), fix a description
> in
> > an
> > > > API
> > > > > method, and so on. Moreover, the excessive use of Jira tickets
> leads
> > to
> > > > > hundreds of Jira tickets that we do not know that status of. We
> have
> > > > quite
> > > > > a big number of tickets opened that could be closed. This has been
> > > worse;
> > > > > we are improving as time goes by.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would say that to make this more transparent to others
> (especially
> > > > > newcomers), we need to discuss it, then write it down to make it
> > > > > transparent the way we are working.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:59 AM, Marc-Aurèle Brothier <
> > > marco@exoscale.ch
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > That's a good idea, because people are more and more used to
only
> > > > create
> > > > > PR
> > > > > > on github, and it would be helpful to be more explanatory on
the
> > way
> > > we
> > > > > > work to push changes. I still think we should encourage the
use
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > github milestone as Rohit did with the 4.11.0 (
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/milestone/3?closed=1) to
> list
> > > the
> > > > > > changes in the release notes with the help of the labels to
tag
> the
> > > PRs
> > > > > > instead of relying on the jira ticket (it requires to have
> another
> > > > > login).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as I can remember, the JIRA tickets are used to list
the
> > > changes
> > > > > of
> > > > > > a release, but nothing else. Or am I missing something?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marc-Aurèle
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Rohit Yadav <
> > > > rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > All,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To make it easier for people to contribute changes and
> encourage
> > > > > > > PR/contributions, should we relax the requirement of a
JIRA
> > ticket
> > > > for
> > > > > > pull
> > > > > > > requests that solve trivial/minor issues such as doc bugs,
> build
> > > > fixes
> > > > > > etc?
> > > > > > > A JIRA ticket may still be necessary for new features and
> > > non-trivial
> > > > > > > bugfixes or changes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Another alternative could be to introduce a CONTRIBUTING.md
[1]
> > > that
> > > > > > > explains the list of expected things to contributors when
they
> > > send a
> > > > > PR
> > > > > > > (for example, a jira id, links to fs or other resources,
a
> short
> > > > > summary
> > > > > > > and long description, test results etc).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://help.github.com/articles/setting-guidelines-
> > > > > > > for-repository-contributors/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Rohit
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <https://cloudstack.apache.org>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> > > > > > > www.shapeblue.com
> > > > > > > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
> > > > > > > @shapeblue
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Rafael Weingärtner
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rafael Weingärtner
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daan
> >
>



-- 
Rafael Weingärtner

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