fluo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JIRA vs Github Issues
Date Thu, 09 Jun 2016 02:35:17 GMT
While it's all fine and great to want to help out INFRA, it should not 
be keeping the Fluo from growing.

Remember, this is a time that we all need to focus on growing the 
community behind Fluo in a well-oiled machine. I just see trying to hop 
onto the Github train before it's ready as an impediment to what should 
be the #1 goal.

With my mentor hat on, I would strongly suggest getting the podling 
online, and revisit Github once everything is up and running (and it's 
not blocking development/community-growth).

Christopher wrote:
> Personally, I'd rather use GitHub issues anyway. The minor inconvenience in
> the case of occasional unresponsive reporters I think would be minimal and
> acceptable (there is the additional annoyance of not being able to manage
> labels on issues, but I think even that is minor).
> Using GitHub issues could even help advance the state of development on ASF
> projects, by offering an additional use case to motivate further
> convenience integration. We could even help create or test a service which
> authenticates using ASF project credentials and integrates with GitHub's
> API to manage issues. I've recently been looking at GitHub OAuth integrated
> applications, and it doesn't seem like a difficult service to create. Or,
> perhaps the M.A.T.T. stuff will be online and available to us soon enough
> and it won't matter.
> But, if the majority feel JIRA would be better in the meantime, then we can
> convert the existing issues to JIRA, transfer the repo, and have issues
> disabled. I strongly prefer GH issues over JIRA, but defer to the majority.
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:23 PM Keith Turner<keith@deenlo.com>  wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> IMO, use JIRA to start, and if/when INFRA gives their "blessing" that GH
>>> issues is a supported way to go, we can consider switching then.
>> I am in favor of that.
>> Also I have been researching the option of transferring the existing GH
>> project to Apache and not using GH issues.  I asked INFRA about this and if
>> we are not using GH issues, then they will turn issues off for the Repo.
>> On a personal repo (with one issue) I tried turning off issues to see what
>> would happen.  After doing this I could not longer access issues.  Also a
>> link to the issue started returning 404.   I turned issues back on and the
>> issue was still there and the link started working.   Based on this
>> behaviour, I am not in favor of transferring the repo if we use Jira.   I
>> would like links to existing issues to keep working.
>>> Keith Turner wrote:
>>>> I spoke w/ INFRA on Hipchat and got some more info[1].  So we will not
>> be
>>>> able to close issue on GH and there is no timeline on when we would be
>>>> able
>>>> to.  Given this we need to decide if we would like to use GH issues or
>>>> JIRA.   Also we can transfer the existing project to Apache and not use
>> GH
>>>> issues.
>>>> I am leaning towards using Jira.  Not being able to close issues could
>> be
>>>> a
>>>> pain.
>>>> [1]:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11901?focusedCommentId=15320755&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15320755

View raw message