We as a project won't need to worry about "system of record" or what MS will do in the future. Really.
I encourage all to read INFRA's post about the ASF-GitHub agreement here https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/apache-and-github-a-friendly
In the last paragraph it states:

For many projects, the move to GitHub means a lower bar to both contributing as well as troubleshooting and submitting issues to the projects, through the GitHub issue and pull request features.
Our commitment to provenance, quality and open governance remains the same, and with our tight integration with GitHub through our linked account service, we are able to bring what made Apache a mark of quality to the many users and contributors on GitHub.

ASF has us legally covered, and from the foundation's side, GitHub issues is equal to JIRA issues and GitHub PRs are equal to patches in JIRA.

INFRA also clearly states in the same post that:

People that wish to continue using their Apache committer accounts to commit code may continue doing so on gitbox.apache.org with their Apache credentials. Nothing has changed in that respect.

So the argument against TOS or personal M$ dislikes or principles won't hold here.

We can continue accepting JIRA issues, patches and commits to GitBox for those who favor those tools for any reason.
But we can equally well embrace the entire GitHub tooling which was made available to us by ASF earlier this year, and make that the de facto (and primary documented) way of interacting with Lucene/Solr.
I'd prefer a complete switch like Accumulo did, as a dual tracker situation is a bit of a mess. A third option is to automate the creation of linked shadow issues in GH for new JIRA issues that gets created from Syria :)

Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com

18. sep. 2019 kl. 06:58 skrev Gus Heck <gus.heck@gmail.com>:

I wrote quickly and didn't expound much, let me clarify that my comments are in reference to having bug tracking in GitHub. Using the mirror doesn't bother me since the system of record is apache gitbox (the GitHub mirror is WAY better UI than gitbox). Having the record of what bugs were resolved in what versions and the thought that went into it, only exist outside apache is all I'm worried about. I'm not anti git, nor am I anti code review in GitHub, as long as major direction changes and decisions s are summarized in jira, or in code comments. I also have generally assumed that pull request reviews were meant to mostly be code review, i.e. focused comments on specific lines or classes . Discussion of how to solve bugs or possible directions for features would be in jira.

In more concrete terms one thing I will definitely miss if we go to GitHub is the tabular view of issues, especially the ability to sort by issue ID which I use regularly to get a view of (roughly) chronologically history of changes on a topic. I really find their way of listing issues very hard to read. It would be much easier to scan down a column of milestones for example. 

By the way, how would we plan to handle fix versions in GitHub issues? Milestones? What about affects version etc.

And I don't agree that "everyone is on GitHub" I still have yet to encounter a single client site that was using GitHub (~20 clients in 6 years ranging from 1 man startups to Fortune 50 companies). Plenty using git, often bitbucket, but nobody using github itself. Plenty of open source projects (including minor ones I started) use GitHub... But the idea that folks out there won't know how to adapt to anything other than GitHub seems preposterous to me. The only folks who are not going to be able to absorb a new bug tracking system are the very junior devs, few of whom will be looking to contribute to Solr I think. Honestly the popularity of python as a teaching language is a much bigger threat to our ability to attract fresh folks than our bug tracker choice...

So I'm not at all against GitHub having some role, but the degree of dependency on outside services seems important. I guess it's possible to see it as a question of what you consider peripheral vs core. I think records of the issues are core, but code review comments not so much.

Also it seems ironic that I'm writing this mail to clarify I'm not entirely against Github as I wait for a *forced* reboot to finish on my Windows machine... One that hit while I was in the middle of something else... 


On Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 9:01 PM Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, just FYI, I say that as someone that kind of prefers patches and JIRA for 90% of what I do. I’ve been doing this same shit for like half my life, I’m not looking for fancy new tools for the hell of it either. I like patches. It’s just going to happen. And I see a huge pool of free resources in the meantime, wow those workflow limits are not too bad at all. I could stop another new test that takes 2 minutes from coming in non nightly. Now that’s practically interesting.


On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 7:39 PM Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that is a little over the top.

As it is the majority of dev and pr's and action is moving to GitHub, whether anyone is from Syria or not.

If we decided, like most other communities on Gods green earth, to tell our community we are going GitHub first it and expect committers to not avoid all of our checks by just sticking to patches, the practical differences don't have to be much beyond that. Apache GitBox is not going away, it's easy to clearly spell out that those without access to GitHub can provide a patch as we would allow any committer without access or moral quandaries the same obviously. Making how to contribute a patch and use JIRA alternate doc for those with GitHub issues is pretty low effort.

JIRA is a little different, I'm not as sold on leaving it, but really it's the same thing if almost all of the dev community starts using it for the bulk of what would be in JIRA, already lots of JIRA related comments and review have gone there - most stuff is just split instead of "free and available" - GitHub is lacking, JIRA is lacking.  Given that every damn company and project is on GitHub, this is just the way it will continue to go. So leaving JIRA up for history and those without access to GitHub would be the same too.

And if M$ does anything with GitHub, the universe will collectively move on, with 90% of the world in the same spot. Great opportunity will emerge if that happens. Join me in a startup :)

It sounds great to be like, freedom, TOS and "Sad!" but practically it's all meaningless.

This is happening and will happen. Like I once said Git was inevitable and just shut up until it came, this is the same. 

"Us" as a community deciding to embrace it just means 3-4 old curmudgeons in a year won't as likely still be holding onto old ways for the sake of a imagined victim. Anyone that doesn't want to accept the GitHub TOS would get the same deal as someone from Siria. They will get the same 2nd citizen experience they are currently enjoying and that will continue to grow.

And whatever you say or whatever the day, the practical difference of what happens will be zilch except for one thing: some people will feel better about bucking the community even if they are not from Syria or morally against the GitHub TOS.

I'm a big fan of the kicking of screaming way, but generally only in my personal life. Professionally, I like to embrace the practical.


On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:59 PM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
Ok, I buy that reason for leaving the ASF controlled mechanism. 

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:16 PM Chris Hostetter <hossman_lucene@fucit.org> wrote:

: Is there any reason at all that we need to hold on to JIRA? ASF allows
: us to move all issue handling over to GH, I'd like us to consider such a
: move.

In my opinion, migrating from JIRA to Github "issues" would be a terrible

I have no objections to the goal of "encouraging" and "facilitating"
contributions via github from people already using github -- but making
github the defacto (or *sole*) way to participate and contribute code
means pressuring people into accepting the github TOS (not just
now, but whatever those might be in the future) as well as making it
virtually impossible for people to participate if they are in locations
github has decided to block (ie: Iran, Syria, and Crimea ATM + whomever
else the US decides to sanction down the road)

Opening up, or expanding, pathways for participation is one thing --
I'm all in favor of that (even if I personally can't stand those avenues).

But *closing* existing path ways that are currently entirely "open" and
"free" to anyone that wants to participate w/o any limitations or TOS
other then "Provide an ASF controled and owned website with an email
address" ... that's just sad.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org

Anshum Gupta