I'm also in support of moving over to GH Issues as I think lowering the barrier to entry is pretty important, and that the effort of the migration will be well worth it in the long run
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 at 00:54, Joris Van den Bossche < jorisvandenboss...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would also support a migration of our issues to GitHub. It seems > unlikely to me that another third-party tool would be good enough to > make the whole experience better (given that we already use GitHub for > PRs). And I agree with others that keep using JIRA is not a good > option with this change. > > Although I regularly cursed JIRA (for its custom markup language, > ...), it has indeed some nice features to organize issues that I will > miss. I think that most things (components, issue types, priority) can > be replaced with a strictly organized set of labels (and milestones > for Fix version). > I think the main thing we will miss are the Links (relation between > issues), but we can try to promote some consistent usage of adding > "Duplicate of #...", "Related to #..." in top post of an issue when > appropriate. > > And +1 on exploring Discussions for what we currently use issues for > (i.e. user questions, as alternative for the user mailing list), as > Jacob mentions. > > Joris > > On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 at 19:25, Weston Pace <weston.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > +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. > > > > >
