This is Anecdotal data -- However I thought it might be useful to share. In my current project(Unfortunately not open source, so I will not be able share the data or screen shots) we use Github issues exclusively to track all the issues.
Some things work very well -- So the pros are: 1. Very easy to create a milestone from different git repositories, We use MileStones extensively. 2. When you commit a pull request, and resolve the issue, things move in the Milestone. 3. Nothing fancy, all you have is open, in progress, blocked and resolved. Very easy to understand and manage, very useful for small teams and small sprints. 4. This is just a core essentials product, and does nothing fancy -- If you are used to the power of JIRA, you will be disappointed. 5. In my experience, if you are running small focused sprints, this works well, since you are not trying to deliver 500 closed issues in a release, but rather less than 100 issues in a sprint. 6. Simple,d gets the job and stays out of the way. 7. Fully integrated, you see the issue, code review, comments, CI, everything in one place. That is really cool when you look at an issue later. Cons -- 1. Compared to JIRA -- most of the power is missing -- for example, you cannot do a burndown chart to see you progress in Github. 2. The powerful tags, expressive power of JIRAs Query language etc, is completely missing. Having worked with both, my personal take is that if you are a small development focused group -- then Github issues are really cool. But if you are a large org, 100s of developers and program managers requiring you to steer the boat, well, JIRA is really the tool, and Github will not cut it. Having used both systems extensively, I find Github Issues a better tool, but your mileage will vary. Thanks Anu Ps. I was not aware that a project like K8s can be successfully run using Github issues -- perhaps the nature of collaboration is very dev centric and not as much management focused and Github issues work well. I find the Github issues really easy, simple and relaxing to use and don't miss the heavy duty features of JIRA. But be warned, if you are looking for an equivalent system to JIRA, Github issues is not it. You will have to be prepared to modify your workflows, but not in a bad way. On Sun, Nov 1, 2020 at 10:17 AM Arpit Agarwal <aagar...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote: > Looks too unstructured. They are using labels for Issue type and priority. > I don’t see any priority field either. Not sure it is worth the energy to > make the switch. > > > > On Nov 1, 2020, at 9:34 AM, Elek, Marton <e...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > Good question, I didn't do a research, yet. > > > > But I knew that Kubernetes is a heavy Github user and I found it uses > milestones for versions: > > > > https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/milestones > > > > Or k3s: > > > > https://github.com/rancher/k3d/milestones > > > > Marton > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/1/20 5:24 PM, Arpit Agarwal wrote: > >> Do you have an example of another project using milestones as you're > suggesting? > >> ----- Original message ----- > >> From: "Elek, Marton" <e...@apache.org> > >> To: ozone-...@hadoop.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Github issues vs Jira issues > >> Date: Sunday, November 01, 2020 6:30 AM > >> Thanks the questions Arpit and Vivek. > >> I agree with you: the main question is how the existing workflows can be > >> mapped to the features of github issues. > >> We need to collect all the used workflows. I checked the two features > >> which you mentioned: > >> 1. EPIC > >> Epics can be managed in Github with created "projects". > >> For example: https://github.com/elek/hadoop-ozone/projects > >> Seems to be slightly better than Jira: > >> 1. It can show all the existing / in-progress epic as a list > >> 2. It can show a Kanban board for all the epics > >> 3. Issues can be moved automatically based on the status of the PR. > >> 2. FIXED VERSION / CUSTOM FIELDS > >> Yes, custom fields are usually handled by custom labels in Github, which > >> is slightly weaker. > >> However you don't need to create label for the fix versions and both > >> issues and PRs can be assigned to "Milestones" > >> Milestones are something like the versions and provide a progress view > >> out-of the box: > >> https://github.com/elek/hadoop-ozone/milestone/1 > >> Do you have any other features in your mind which should be checked? > >> Thanks, > >> Marton > >> On 10/28/20 5:21 PM, Vivek Ratnavel wrote: > >>> Also, another thing to note would be that Github issues don't support > >>> Epics. > >>> > >>> We will have to create milestones to track big features and their > progress > >>> or use a third-party Github action like this - > >>> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/epic-issues-for-github. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Vivek Subramanian > >>> > >>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:48 AM Arpit Agarwal > <aagar...@cloudera.com.invalid> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Doesn't look like GitHub issues supports custom fields. Does it > support > >>>> basics like resolution/fix version? I checked out Druid's GitHub > issues, > >>>> everything seems to be tacked on using labels. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 1:09 AM Elek, Marton <e...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> The new Apache Ozone project requires new git repositories / issue > >>>>> tracker / wiki namespaces. > >>>>> > >>>>> And it seems to be a good opportunity to think about the used issue > >>>>> tracker / issue workflow. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I suggest to consider using Github for issue tracking and wiki > instead > >>>>> of Jira / Confluence. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Advantages: > >>>>> > >>>>> * Better integration between PRs and issues (and between issues > and > >>>>> other Github features) > >>>>> > >>>>> * Current workflow would be simplified (doesn't require to create > >>>>> boilerplate Jira issue for each new PR) > >>>>> > >>>>> * Easier for for contributors (doesn't require to create jira > user, > >>>>> request to assign permission to be an assignee...) > >>>>> > >>>>> * Easier to follow discussions (I know some issues where half of > the > >>>>> discussion was under the PR the other half was under the Jira) > >>>>> > >>>>> * Easier to follow contribution statistics (enough to query > github api) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Disadvantage: > >>>>> > >>>>> * Finding / reading old issue still require Jira (but we can > migrate > >>>>> the open issues if we need them) > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't think it's a big deal as we already have some issues at other > >>>>> places (for example children of HDFS-7240). > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> What are your opinions? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Note: There are Apache projects which already uses Github instead of > >>>>> Jira (Superset, Druid and many smaller incubator projects) > >>>>> > >>>>> Marton > >>>>> > >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ozone-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ozone-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ozone.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ozone.apache.org > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ozone.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ozone.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ozone.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ozone.apache.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ozone.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ozone.apache.org > >
