fluo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>
Subject Re: JIRA vs Github Issues
Date Thu, 09 Jun 2016 15:08:59 GMT
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> 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).
>

I think I agree w/ you there, it may be a minor annoyance.  I could live
with it.  Even though I am ok with living with the annoyance I have the
following concerns w/ the GH path :

 * Getting something done in a timely manner.  INFRA has been very
unresponsive on this path.  However, INFRA guys in chat seem to indicate
that if we can choose this path and they will do it.
 * Placing additional burden on INFRA in the short term, it the GH path
involves lots of one off task for them.  This could result in more delays.


>
> 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
>

We does not include me in this case.  I don't realistically have time to
work these types of issues,.  Do not want to be stuck in a situation where
we need work done re GH issues and its never done by anyone


> 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.
>

I would not want to transfer the repo and disable issues.  This would make
all links to existing issues stop working.


>
> 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
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>

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