Actually thinking a bit more, I think there is a bit inconvenient in current approach (JIRA for issue tracking and PR for patches). Each time I went to github for reviewing pull requests. I have to go back to JIRA (by copying the JIRA id and typing the URL) to check the descriptions and discussions. Moving to Github will make the life much easier.
- Sijie On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't any documents at INFRA to point. I do observe more incubator > projects are using Github Issues directly when they transfer to the ASF. I > knew some of the projects are switching to use Github issues. For example, > Traffic Server switches to Github Issues and makes their JIRA readonly at > the beginning of this year. > > The preference is up to projects, I believe. > > - Sijie > > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I have seen some large projects relying on Github Issues, Docker being >> one of them. I have recently been using it in the Pravega project and I do >> find that it doesn't offer right up front some of the features that jira >> offers. For example, it doesn't give you the ability of creating a >> workflow, although what we have done and have seen others doing it to >> create labels to represent steps of a workflow. We ended up overloading the >> use of labels, but it looks decent with the colors and such. >> >> I also find a bit confusing the relationship between issues and pull >> requests at times. We have been trying to enforce that each pull request >> requires at least one issue, but sometimes it feels unnatural because you >> also have space for a description and the ability to comment in a pull >> request. >> >> I'm not sure what the story is for github issues and apache infra, >> though. The information I have is the same as Bobby's. Does anyone have a >> pointer? >> >> -Flavio >> >> > On 26 May 2017, at 17:06, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID> >> wrote: >> > >> > Apache does have a requirement that community discussions and >> especially votes are stored on apache servers. This is often done by >> linking different systems together (like pull requests to JIRA) or by >> having a fire-hose of changes from the external system sent to some apache >> mailing list that it can archive. >> > I have not used github issues much but from what I have done it does >> not look even close to being as full featured as JIRA. So my vote would be >> to ask people to use JIRA, but not ignore the github issues. >> > >> > - Bobby >> > >> > On Friday, May 26, 2017, 9:57:43 AM CDT, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> >> wrote:Hi all, >> > >> > Currently we are using Jira for issue tracking and using Github for >> > managing pull requests. For a new developer, he has to create two >> accounts >> > in order to engage with BookKeeper community. I am thinking - shall we >> also >> > move the issue tracking to use Github Issues (which I believe Apache >> Infra >> > supports that now)? So most of the development activities will happen in >> > Github. >> > >> > Another reason I asked this - I saw a Github issue was created. >> > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/165 I believe we somehow >> > requested to change the permissions to allow creating Github issues >> before. >> > >> > Any thoughts? >> > >> > - Sijie >> >> >
