nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aldrin Piri <aldrinp...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA
Date Mon, 04 Sep 2017 18:13:47 GMT
Hey folks,

I entered an issue (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFI-397) to
get this done and will initiate the associated ticket(s) with INFRA to make
this happen.

--aldrin

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Andy Christianson <
achristianson@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> On 8/22/17, 11:57 AM, "Kevin Doran" <kdoran.apache@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     Clones can cross projects. I'm a +1 for the suggestion of separate
> projects so as to keep a 1-to-1 between projects and repos. Related tickets
> can be linked or cloned to provide context when applicable.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Kevin
>
>     On 8/22/17, 11:45, "Jeff Zemerick" <jzemerick@apache.org> wrote:
>
>         When I briefly looked through the tickets last week none stood out
> to me as
>         applying to both projects. Granted, some potentially could like
> changing
>         the Docker base image. With pull requests and GitHub I am of the
> opinion
>         there should be a one-to-one-to-one correlation between ticket,
> pull
>         request, and project. I know you can Clone a ticket but I don't
> know if
>         it's possible to move the clone to a different project.
>
>         On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Tony Kurc <trkurc@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>         > If there is a ticket that applies to multiple implementations,
> separate
>         > jira projects makes that a bit more complicated. How often is
> that likely
>         > to happen?
>         >
>         > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>         >
>         > > Since changing the permissions on requirement for a given
> field and
>         > > creating a new JIRA project both require ASF infra (i believe)
> then
>         > > perhaps we should just go with the JIRA project route as that
> is
>         > > cleaner/easier in the long run.
>         > >
>         > > What do ya'll think?
>         > >
>         > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Kevin Doran <
> kdoran.apache@gmail.com>
>         > > wrote:
>         > > > I agree that would be an improvement to my suggestion of
> making the
>         > > existing Component field required. As to feasibility, I leave
> that up to
>         > > someone that has more experience working with ASF infra to
> administer
>         > these
>         > > ASF JIRA projects (Aldrin?).
>         > > >
>         > > > -Kevin
>         > > >
>         > > > On 8/21/17, 15:00, "Jeff Zemerick" <jzemerick@apache.org>
> wrote:
>         > > >
>         > > >     Would it be possible to use a JIRA custom field (that's
> required)
>         > > called
>         > > >     "Implementation" or something similarly named with
> choices of C++
>         > > and Java?
>         > > >     With more than just Java and C++ for components I'm
> afraid those
>         > two
>         > > >     choices might be overlooked when a ticket is created.
>         > > >
>         > > >     On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Andy Christianson <
>         > > >     achristianson@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>         > > >
>         > > >     > Making it required sounds like an improvement, at the
> very least.
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     > -Andy I.C.
>         > > >     > ________________________________________
>         > > >     > From: Kevin Doran <kdoran.apache@gmail.com>
>         > > >     > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:22 AM
>         > > >     > To: dev@nifi.apache.org
>         > > >     > Subject: Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     > Would  it suffice to make the existing 'component'
> field
>         > > _required_ at
>         > > >     > ticket creation time, and having components consist of
> 'C++',
>         > > 'Java', &
>         > > >     > perhaps 'Both/All/*' as well? I imagine that is less
> effort than
>         > > setting up
>         > > >     > and maintaining a separate project and solves the
> problem, unless
>         > > there are
>         > > >     > advantages that a separate project would provide other
> than just
>         > > issue
>         > > >     > filtering by C++/Java.
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     > Kevin
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     > On 8/21/17, 11:18, "Andy Christianson" <
>         > > achristianson@hortonworks.com>
>         > > >     > wrote:
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >     Joe,
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >     We actually already have that. There is a 'C++'
> and 'Java'
>         > > component.
>         > > >     > It works for the most part, but there are cases where
> it becomes
>         > > ambiguous,
>         > > >     > particularly on docker-related tickets.
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >     I think there's certainly an argument that we need
> to just
>         > > track
>         > > >     > components more carefully. Having it be a separate
> JIRA would
>         > make
>         > > it
>         > > >     > harder to make a ticket ambiguous. Is it worth the
>         > effort/overhead
>         > > of
>         > > >     > setting up another JIRA? I'll leave that to the more
>         > > >     > experienced/established Apache parties since I don't
> know what
>         > the
>         > > overhead
>         > > >     > cost is.
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >     Regards,
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >     Andy I.C.
>         > > >     >     ________________________________________
>         > > >     >     From: Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com>
>         > > >     >     Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:10 AM
>         > > >     >     To: dev@nifi.apache.org
>         > > >     >     Subject: Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >     Can we recommend and setup a set of component
> names so that
>         > > filtering
>         > > >     >     can be done reasonably?
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >     If we do that would it be sufficient?
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >     Alternatively we can ask ASF infra to setup
> another JIRA
>         > > project such
>         > > >     >     as 'minificpp' but I'd like to avoid that until
> we're really
>         > > sure we
>         > > >     >     want to bug em.
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >     Thanks
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >     On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Andy Christianson
>         > > >     >     <achristianson@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>         > > >     >     > Agree 100%. I have been bitten by this a few
> times. Is this
>         > > >     > something Aldrin can do/have done?
>         > > >     >     >
>         > > >     >     > -Andy I.C.
>         > > >     >     > ________________________________________
>         > > >     >     > From: Jeff Zemerick <jzemerick@apache.org>
>         > > >     >     > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:56 PM
>         > > >     >     > To: dev@nifi.apache.org
>         > > >     >     > Subject: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA
>         > > >     >     >
>         > > >     >     > The MINIFI project in JIRA is currently a
> combination of
>         > > issues for
>         > > >     > both
>         > > >     >     > the C++ and Java implementations. Some issues
> for the C++
>         > > project do
>         > > >     > have
>         > > >     >     > the C++ component set but some don't and it
can
> sometimes
>         > be
>         > > hard to
>         > > >     > easily
>         > > >     >     > differentiate the issues by their titles. (There
> isn't a
>         > > "Java"
>         > > >     > component
>         > > >     >     > so a useful filter is hard to make.) Has there
> been any
>         > > >     > consideration given
>         > > >     >     > to having separate JIRA projects for the
> C++/Java MiNiFi
>         > > >     > implementations?
>         > > >     >     >
>         > > >     >     > Thanks,
>         > > >     >     > Jeff
>         > > >     >     >
>         > > >     >     >
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >
>         > > >
>         > > >
>         > > >
>         > >
>         >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message