I agree, having one place is more convenient. But what is the feature parity between Jira and Github? Here is what I found by googling. https://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/PMC/Github+Issues+vs+Jira+pros+and+cons
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >> > >> > > > -- Jvrao --- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi
