+1 for GH issues mainly because it lowers the barrier to entry and JIRA won't be an acceptable solution any longer with infra's proposed changes. I suspect I'd be +1 even without the infra change though providing everyone else was willing to make the switch.
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 8:19 AM Jacob Wujciak <ja...@voltrondata.com.invalid> wrote: > > +1 > > While there will be some work associated with migrating to Github Issues I > think it is the only viable solution that does not impose an untenable > burden on the PMC. Additionally I think that using gh issues will lower the > barrier for new contributions as experienced by arrow-rs. I don't think > another third-party tool is the solution as it would add maintenance burden > on the arrow community (I doubt INFRA will setup anything else in addition > to JIRA) with questionable value. > > I have no experience with github discussions but reading about it, it might > be a good replacement for the functions our issues currently have with a > more forum/board like format that might increase discoverability of > discussions. Issue template can now do more than just be prefilled with > text but actually act as forms: [1] > > > * Issue links: It seems that we can't do this. > Well we can mention #issue_number in the comment closing the issue and gh > issues now have two distinct closing states for done and > won't-fix/duplicate. > > [1]: > https://docs.github.com/en/communities/using-templates-to-encourage-useful-issues-and-pull-requests/configuring-issue-templates-for-your-repository#creating-issue-forms > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 8:56 AM Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > +1 on migration. > > > > > The one thing I would not want to lose, though, is the categorization > > > facilities we currently have in Jira. Namely: Component, Affects > > > version, Fix version, Type (bug/improvement/task...), Issue links > > > (superceded by/relates to/is caused by...), Priority (at least > > > Minor/Major/Blocker). > > > > I tried using some GitHub features. > > > > * Component: We already use GitHub's label feature > > * e.g.: lang-c++: > > > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3Alang-c%2B%2B > > * Affects version: Create new labels such as "affect-10.0.0"? > > * Fix version: We can use GitHub's milestone feature > > * I tried creating the "11.0.0" milestone: > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/milestone/1 > > * Type: GitHub's label feature or custom field in GitHub's > > project feature? > > * I tried creating a GitHub project for Apache Arrow: > > https://github.com/orgs/apache/projects/148 > > * All Apache Arrow committers have Admin role. You can > > change anything to learn GitHub's project feature. > > * Issue links: It seems that we can't do this. > > * Priority: GitHub's label feature or custom field in GitHub's > > project feature? > > > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > kou > > > > In <82d49482-706d-081b-32e7-f692bc282...@python.org> > > "Re: [DISCUSS] Move issue tracking to <something>" on Sat, 22 Oct 2022 > > 16:19:14 +0200, > > Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Neal, > > > > > > Le 22/10/2022 à 15:35, Neal Richardson a écrit : > > >> Their email says: > > >> > > >>> Infra knows this process change places an increasing burden on PMC > > >>> members > > >>> for managing contributors, and makes it harder for people to > > >>> contribute > > >> bug reports. > > >>> We suggest projects consider using GitHub Issues for customer-facing > > >> questions/bug > > >>> reports/etc., while maintaining development issues on Jira. > > >> but I think that having a two-tiered system for issue tracking > > >> presents > > >> some notable downsides for us, including: > > >> * Increased barriers to entry for new contributors and a sense of > > >> inequality between "us" and "them". There's already too much friction > > >> IMO, > > >> and this pushes that up significantly. > > >> * Maintenance burden of triaging and synchronizing issues across > > >> * trackers > > >> sounds like a lot for us to take on. I'd prefer the active maintainers > > >> on > > >> the project spend their time shipping useful, reliable software, not > > >> doing > > >> bookkeeping. > > > > > > I fully agree with your concerns. So I'm +1 on migrating to > > > *something else*. > > > > > > The one thing I would not want to lose, though, is the categorization > > > facilities we currently have in Jira. Namely: Component, Affects > > > version, Fix version, Type (bug/improvement/task...), Issue links > > > (superceded by/relates to/is caused by...), Priority (at least > > > Minor/Major/Blocker). > > > > > > How much of that can be recreated in Github Issues, or any other > > > alternative? > > > > > > A secondary question is whether it's possible to migrate the current > > > issues. Would be nice to have, but not blocking either (IMHO). > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Antoine. > >
