On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 11:55 PM Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/31/2025 3:52 PM, Tomek CEDRO wrote: > > Greg I do not plan to reorganize existing _repositories_ and their > > structure nor to reorganize the _project_ in any way :-) > > No, I was referring to the concept of putting all Issues under one > repository. That was the topic in 2019 and 2020. (although other > misguided people wanted to put apps under nuttx/ too). > > Jira and Confluence are provided by the ASF, but no one was interested > in that for issue tracking. > > I personally prefer to see each repository to be standalone as they are > now, rather that mixing any apps stuff into the OS, even if it is only > Issues. I would rather see Issues and PRs together in the same > repository to which they reply. That is driven mostly by my sense a > modularity and partitioning.
I am sorry for not providing enough initial context in this thread. It comes from a discussion on how to improve things from another thread (about roadmap, task owners, etc). I prefer to keep things clean so I started this new thread dedicated only to playing around with "new application XYZ on GitHub" that can be used to visualize stuff from our repositories. This XYZ is unfortunately confusingly named "GitHub Projects"^TM. Thus "Yoda Style" subject of the thread that reads "Roadmap testing approach with GitHub Projects tool for NuttX" :D We can try it out and see if that fits what we were talking about, without existing repos modification, or just delete the testing grounds :-) Jira will double the work and we have to follow two different places which is distracting and discouraging imho :-P On the other hand this XYZ showed up recently on GitHub so we can access Code, Issues, PRs (as part of the repo) and the XYZ application (separately in addition to repo) on a single GitHub website using the same username. So XYZ may be easier to use for that reason alone even if its simpler at this point or offers less possibilities than Jira. Everything in our repositories and project organization remains untouched! :-) The problem is just in this silly name "GitHub Projects"^TM that they probably used to resemble "Microsoft Projects" or whatever its called, so "managers can now also work on GitHub"^TM :D With this new XYZ tool we can create a "project management table". Its only called "GitHub Project"^TM but its like separate wiki page outside repo but still on github lets call it "table". This XYZ will look into existing nuttx, nuttx-apps, nuttx-website repositories and create a table where we can attach Issues or Pull Requests to visualize them in "human readable roadmap like form". Even URL is different and outside existing repo. Thats it, no harm done to existing stuff :-) Here is an example playground: https://github.com/orgs/apache/projects/455 Yesterday I didn't know yet if I need to create a separate table for each repo, because I didn't know yet if a single table can access issues and prs from various other repos. Today I know it is possible to attach Issues and PRs from all of our repos to a single table. This was my comment that we can display stuff from all 3 repos in a single table and we don't need 3 separate tables for each repo, so we can "keep all items in one place" on a single table. Example URL above displays a table with some tasks displayed from nuttx, nuttx-apps, and nuttx-website that is the whole project parts. For a comparison below we can see a table dedicated only to nuttx-website: https://github.com/orgs/apache/projects/457 Which approach is better? To have single table that displays selected tasks from all 3 repos, or to have a separate tables for each repo? I feel that single table display may be better because we have a clear "roadmap" for the whole project and we can see the progress of all three repositories :-P This table system also allows creating new Issues on selected repo, we can even display issues from other relevant repos (i.e. LVGL, Espressif, etc), creating simple tasks dependency, mark tasks state "todo", "in progress", "done", etc etc. So its more like management table that operates on external existing repos. Kind of management display. Maybe a "GitHub Manager" name would be less confusing :-P That's my several hours fly-by experience, its a simple tool (for now), it has some pros and cons, I think it may fit the need :-) -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 11:55 PM Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 1/31/2025 3:52 PM, Tomek CEDRO wrote: > > Greg I do not plan to reorganize existing _repositories_ and their > > structure nor to reorganize the _project_ in any way :-) > > No, I was referring to the concept of putting all Issues under one > repository. That was the topic in 2019 and 2020. (although other > misguided people wanted to put apps under nuttx/ too). > > Jira and Confluence are provided by the ASF, but no one was interested > in that for issue tracking. > > I personally prefer to see each repository to be standalone as they are > now, rather that mixing any apps stuff into the OS, even if it is only > Issues. I would rather see Issues and PRs together in the same > repository to which they reply. That is driven mostly by my sense a > modularity and partitioning. > > But ASF projects are complete anarchist democracies and people may > choose as they like. I don't really give a flying f**k. > > > -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
