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 Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:56:56 GMT
Hey folks,

The new JIRA project is now live.  Please make use of that when filing C++
related JIRAs.  I am going to start moving appropriate items to that
instance.

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Aldrin Piri <aldrinpiri@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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