mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nan Zhu <zhunanmcg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [RESULT][VOTE] tracking code changes with JIRA by associating pull requests
Date Thu, 08 Mar 2018 16:49:33 GMT
+1 on both suggestions

a bit concern is on the quality of JIRA which is created automatically

I can see a lot of PRs are not described comprehensively, if we just post
what in description to JIRA, it's error-propagating


but the quality of JIRA is a big topic worth more discussions



On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Marco de Abreu <marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com
> wrote:

> Would it be possible to automatically create JIRA tickets when a GitHub
> issue is being created? We could then mirror all comments the same way it's
> happening in https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MXNET/issues/MXNET-42
> but make sure that the bot works in both ways. A comment on GitHub would be
> copied to JIRA and a JIRA comment to GitHub. I think this would be good as
> a first step to start integration.
>
> -Marco
>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:08 PM, Marco de Abreu <
> marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > I also see this as a big advantage in terms of transparency. I personally
> > will try to move away from any company internal issue trackers (except
> for
> > confidential cases) and instead work on Jira that is being managed by the
> > community. This allows everybody to see what is being worked on and gives
> > them the possibility to chime with ideas or suggestions.
> >
> > In my opinion, this obsoletes TT and SIM to a big extent. It's up to you
> > if you maintain multiple issue trackers or stick to one. If anybody has a
> > (non-confidential) issue that's related to my work on CI, I ask them to
> > create a GitHub issue instead of a company internal ticket - I invite
> > everybody to do the same.
> >
> > MXNet is an open source project and moving away from company internal
> > trackers towards community driven ones is the next logical step in my
> > opinion. At the moment, everybody is working on their own and it's hard
> to
> > see for external people (or even developer who are not part of the same
> > team) what we're actually working on.
> >
> > -Marco
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Naveen Swamy <mnnaveen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I am +1 for using JIRA. Managing bigger projects within MXNet on JIRA
> >> brings openness to the project. MXNet Users and the contributors also
> get
> >> a
> >> sense of where the project is heading.
> >> Bigger Tasks can be divided into sub-tasks which contributors can pick
> up
> >> small tasks based on their expertise on and contribute independently.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The vote was discussed on private@ before the vote on dev@, and the
> >> vote
> >> > went on for a very long time.  There was ZERO resistance.   No one
> >> "snuck"
> >> > it in or "slipped it by".
> >> >
> >> > This, hopefully, phases out both SIM and tt, which are both are being
> >> used
> >> > in ways that aren't what they're even designed for, IMO.  Trouble
> >> tickets
> >> > are being used as a backlog for my team, which is insane.
> >> >
> >> > I've actually sent out a couple of mails on dev about contact me if
> you
> >> > don't have access to JIRA.  If you would like to participate in the
> >> > direction of the project, please keep up with the dev email list.
> >> >
> >> > I gave you contributor permissions on JIRA, btw.
> >> > .
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Aaron Markham <
> >> aaron.s.markham@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I'm not quite sure if I have enough background on reasons for or
> >> against
> >> > > this to vote in the next round, but my two cents: I didn't see much
> >> > debate
> >> > > on why we need yet another tool for issues that we have to manually
> >> > > maintain...the vote kind of slid in there without many stakeholders
> >> > > realizing what they were being signed up for. I was thinking, sure,
> if
> >> > YOU
> >> > > want to make jira tickets, go right ahead. I have two internal
> >> ticketing
> >> > > systems to deal with already that assign tasks on MXNet, plus
> GitHub.
> >> > Jira
> >> > > would be four. Happy to make it work, but I'll need fifth tool to
> >> > aggregate
> >> > > communications and metrics between the other four tools! I'm only
> >> sort of
> >> > > joking.
> >> > >
> >> > > I saw Chris's response, and ok the public visibility part makes
> sense,
> >> > but
> >> > > does this phase out any other overhead? Does it integrate? Jira has
> >> > > integration options so maybe we can eliminate some overhead... Like
> >> > > something that hooks into the GitHub api and generates jira tickets
> on
> >> > the
> >> > > fly... I want to believe there's a plan that makes this all easier.
> >> > >
> >> > > What value I don't see is how we lower barriers to contribution and
> >> make
> >> > it
> >> > > more fluid for new users that could become contributors. What's the
> >> story
> >> > > and value proposition?
> >> > >
> >> > > Also, I don't see any docs on the website or on github on how to
> sign
> >> up
> >> > > for jira, or how to contribute according to this new requirement
> >> anywhere
> >> > > on the site. Myself and new contributors wouldn't know what the
> >> expected
> >> > > flow looks like because it's not really accessible. I now see the
> >> > > confluence wiki, but that's pretty much hidden from anyone browsing
> >> the
> >> > > site or github and looking to contribute. Why is this info on
> >> confluence
> >> > at
> >> > > all? Why not in the docs on github that are rendered to the website?
> >> Or
> >> > > conversely, why is some of the info on github and on the website,
if
> >> it
> >> > is
> >> > > being maintained and current only on confluence?
> >> > >
> >> > > These are two separate issues really, but I think if you want
> buy-in,
> >> > this
> >> > > needs to be more transparent and obvious, and provide clear reasons
> >> and
> >> > > benefits to why you're asking for more overhead.
> >> > >
> >> > > Aaron
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mar 6, 2018 21:14, "Eric Xie" <jxie@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > -1
> >> > > >
> >> > > > JIRA is ancient and arcane. This adds unnecessary overhead.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On 2018/03/03 06:11:12, CodingCat <codingcat@apache.org>
wrote:
> >> > > > > This vote passes with 6 +1 votes (6 bindings) and no 0 or
-1
> >> votes.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Binding +1:
> >> > > > > Chris Olivier
> >> > > > > Indhu Bharathi
> >> > > > > Suneel Marthi
> >> > > > > Yuan Tang
> >> > > > > Marco de Abreu
> >> > > > > Sebastian Schelter
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Vote thread:
> >> > > > > https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@mxnet.apache.org:lte=
> >> > > > 1M:tracking%20code%20changes%20with%20JIRA%20by%20associatin
> >> > > > g%20pull%20requests
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I will continue with pushing the content to wiki and take
it
> into
> >> > > > practice
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

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