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 15:13:36 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).
>
> 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.
>

I don't have a strong preference.  I slightly prefer GH issues.  At this
point, my main motivation is moving forward.  Don't want to be stuck in
limbo forever.  I'll pop into hipchat and find out what the timeliness on
transferring to GH would be and what level of effort it requires on INFRA's
part.  I'll report back what I find.



>
> 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