1 Oct
2014
1 Oct
'14
9 a.m.
As mentioned to Vincent in a previous private discussion, perhaps a great
improvement more or less related to this topic, if we are to keep
recommending/forcing jira for contrib projects, would be to use some jira
plugin that allows logging in with GitHub credentials.
Would be nice if we would have such an extension for xwiki.org as well so
that a developer can seamlessly integrate into the XWiki ecosystem without
creating 3 accounts:
- 1 jira account
- 1 xwiki.org account (for e.x.o)
- 1 nexus account
... when he already has a "developer" account on GitHub.
WDYT?
Thanks,
Eduard
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:49 PM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
On 29 Sep 2014 at 11:24:19, Caleb James DeLisle (cjd(a)cjdns.fr(mailto:
cjd(a)cjdns.fr)) wrote:
--
Caleb James DeLisle
XWiki SAS
calebjamesdelisle(a)xwiki.com
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
To be clear, I think both decisions are valid in
their own time.
Someone who always picks A is flitting from one tool to another, never
getting any work done, someone who always picks B is stuck in a previous
century.
The question is not If but When.
What’s below is slightly off topic since this is sliding away from the
issue tracker to use for xwiki-contrib. OTOH since I said I believe we
should use the same tool for both, it’s not so off topic ;)
To answer Caleb on "The question is not If but When”, this is true for
everything... Of course GitHub will go away in due time (and so will GH
issues) and of course the XWiki project will move away from Git when a next
and better SCM appears in a few years ;) (as we did move from CVS to
Subversion to Git already). The same will happen for JIRA but usually you
only move when there’s a compelling-enough reason since the cost of moving
is pretty high in general.
ATM in term of issue tracker there are really only 2 real contenders (ie
with enough features for us) that I know of that could be used by the XWiki
project:
- JIRA
- youtrack
There’s also Mantis that I don’t really know about but from the few
screenshots I’ve seen it doesn’t look as nice as either JIRA or youtrack.
Youtrack was missing quite a lot of features compared to jira when I
evaluated it some years ago but I’ve just noticed it’s coming on par now,
especially with http://www.jetbrains.com/youtrack/nextversion/
Thanks
-Vincent
On 09/29/2014 10:23 AM, Jeremie BOUSQUET wrote:
> Funny to see this kind of discussions in xwiki or another OSS
community,
> after seeing them during my work so many
times :)
> Seems when it comes to issue tracking, always the same arguments and
> counter-arguments come and go.
> Funny also to see that after all the web 2.0 buzz, the rich web
interfaces,
> a simple issue form can frighten so many
people ;-)
> Funny also to see all these discussions for something as "simple" as an
> issue tracker. Basically, it's just filling a table, through some forms
> containing some basic fields (title, description, version...). Even
with
> all fancy features as in Jira, it's
really less complex to use than
most
> source code management tools.
>
> If new devs "come and go", you could also say that as contributors they
> will also "come and go". Said differently, what would you be willing to
> loose, knowing that you may let it go for people that may... not stay
very
> long ? And with recent discussions about
moving some contributed
extensions
> closer to the core xwiki maintainers, having
different tools may have
more
> impacts.
>
> I'm also from category "A" as defined by Vincent, but I must admit
that all
> arguments seem valid, and I may be wrong
thinking that - these are
> never-ending discussions. Usually it ends up with people trying to put
in
> place automatic synchronizations between
jira and github, to satisfy
> everyone - more maintenance and more headaches :-)
>
> In my work we used for a long time another issue tracking tool, and
forms
> used to create new issues counted maybe 10
times more fields than what
you
> have in JIRA (counting the optional fields).
> As a modest extension contributor on xwiki, I was so glad to find JIRA
- I
> always wished I could use it for my work,
instead of the plethora of
> (no-so-good) tools we tried ... But I understand your points.
>
> I'd say that it's a difficult choice around contributions, but if at
least
> the xwiki team is satisfied globally with
the jira issue tracking tool
for
> themselves, it's already something
valuable as it's not always the
case.
>
>
>
> 2014-09-29 9:32 GMT+02:00 Caleb James DeLisle :
>
>> Nice summary of the technical costs/benefits.
>> What I think is missing is compatibility between XWiki project and the
>> developer community.
>>
>> For good or for ill, kids these days use github.
>>
>> The days of svn, jira and tight knit developer communities are gone,
devs
>> are their own
>> free agents, they come and go as they please and asking them to learn
a
>> new bugtracker
>> is like asking them to learn a new language.
>>
>> It's hard to accept that #1 jira has no future in OSS and #2 we are
using
>> jira for OSS,
>> but the world is always changing, anything which has reached
"stability"
>> has begun to
>> lose the market and a bit of cognitive dissidence is the cost of
avoiding
>> delusions.
>>
>>
>> Not that it matters much our decision today, if we keep jira we'll
just
>> end up having
>> this conversation again in a year :)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Caleb
>>
>>
>> On 09/28/2014 06:36 PM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I’ve read again the full thread and here are some thoughts I have:
>>>
>>> 1) First, I’d like to state again that when someone wishes to join
>> xwiki-contrib it’s not a neutral act. It means: “I’d like to join a
>> community, develop my extension collaboratively with others and abide
by
>> the project rules”. It’s thus normal
that we set up some rules even
for
>> xwiki-contrib (these rules can be at
code level or at the level of the
>> tools used to develop the software). They are needed because as soon
as
the
>> code is developed by more than 1 person
it’s required. If the person
>> doesn’t want to be bothered and is not ready to follow those rules,
it’s
>> fine, they don’t need to be in
xwiki-contrib because they can still
make
>> their extension have the same visibility
as others simply by
publishing
>> them on http://extensions.xwiki.org
(e.x.o). That said, of course, we
>> should still provide development tools that are the simplest possible.
>> Actually this should be true also when developing XWiki “core” so in
>> general I don’t see much differences between b
>> o
>> th. If it’s hard for contributors it’s also hard for core developers
and
>> we might as well fix the issue for
everyone. Last point is
maintenance:
>> lots of people (including some
committers) don’t see the maintenance
>> involved (cleaning up issues, maintaining the infrastructure -
monitoring,
>> restarts, upgrades of tools, ensuring
the quality of the extensions,
fixing
>> documentation mistakes/missing items on
e.x.o, etc). In practice
there are
>> very few committers who do this
maintenance and we shouldn’t
overburden
>> them either. Offering too many choices
means more burden on
>> infrastructure/maintenance. This is why BTW that forges are usually
>> reticent to offer more than one tool to use for each domain.
>>>
>>> 2) Seems we have 2 categories of people on this thread:
>>> A- those who consider that a single place for issues with the
ability
to
>> have a global dashboard/search feature
is key
>>> B- those who consider that it’s more important to offer freedom of
issue
>> tracker choice to contributors than the
single place to search/view
all
>> issues
>>>
>>> Personally I’m more more in the category A because:
>>> - it means less maintenance
>>> - I believe global search and a global place for issues is important
>>> - I believe JIRA can be configured to be as simple as GH if that’s
what
>> we want (more below)
>>>
>>> 3) I agree that we should try to make our issue creation experience
as
>> simple as possible (some ideas below)
>>>
>>> 4) Note: If we were to allow using GH issues, we would also need to
>> develop a {{ghissue}} macro for release notes on e.x.o similar to the
>> {{jira}} macro. Not a big deal but would need to be done.
>>>
>>> 5) Sergiu mentioned: “ Supplementing Jean's answer, creating a Jira
>> issue is a lot of work, having to decide what version is affected, the
>> relevant components, labels, environment, priority... A GitHub issue
can
be
>> just a title, and it takes seconds to
create.”.
>>>
>>> I think this has more to do with how we setup our JIRA:
>>> - "having to decide what version is affected”. This is always needed
for
>> bugs, be it on JIRA or on GH issues.
Also note that on JIRA the
“affects
>> version” field is NOT mandatory. We have
a best practice of always
filling
>> it ourselves but we could change that
rule and decide that we should
fill
>> it only for bugs for example.
>>> - "the relevant components”. Again this is optional in JIRA too.
>> Actually now that JIRA makes it easy in the UI to edit fields (without
>> having to go in edit mode) we could make all optional field not be
visible
>> in the Basic Issue Creation Field Scheme
(what you see when you click
on
>> “Create Issue”). The only possible
downside is that we will receive
more
>> mails.
>>> - “labels, environment”. Again this is optional too in JIRA. BTW in
your
>> link
(https://github.com/phenotips/phenotips/issues/1116) you seem to
>> also use that on GH issues so I don’t see the difference.
>>> - “priority” is also optional.
>>> - "A GitHub issue can be just a title, and it takes seconds to
create”.
>> And it’s exactly the same for a JIRA
issue. All you need to fill in
is the
>> “summary" field :)
>>>
>>> In conclusion: this is not a differentiator between JIRA and GH
issues.
>> If we think it’s scary for a user to see
the optional fields in the
Basic
>> Issue Creation Field Scheme, then let’s
remove them from that screen
now.
>>>
>>> 6) Regarding traceability by putting issue reference in commits it’s
for
>> us to decide whether we want this as a
best practice or not. It does’t
>> depend on the issue tracker we use. For example
>> https://github.com/phenotips/phenotips/issues/1116 shows that it also
>> exists in GH issues. Personally I think that it’s part of the best
>> practices we should keep in the XWiki ecosystem but it could be
discussed.
>> Jean feels it a burden apparently.
However I don’t know how often
Jean has
>> had to fix other people’s issues several
months after their commits.
It’s
>> really handy and saves you hours when
you can quickly link issue and
code.
>> Again remember that xwiki-contrib is NOT
for solo projects. When you
put
>> your project there you want it to be
developed collaboratively and
join a
>> community.
>>>
>>> 7) Edy said: "when all he wants to do is to fix a typo in XWiki's
UI
or
>> align some labels, all through a simple
GitHub fork & pull request.”.
This
>> is still possible right now. It’s more a
question of best practice.
Would
>> we want to apply a PR without a JIRA?
For a label name change or a
typo I’d
>> say definitely. BTW we don’t create jira
issues for this either in the
>> “core”… (at least it’s not mandatory, see dev.xwiki.org).
>>>
>>> In conclusion:
>>> - I’m also tempted by the GH issues approach because it’s close to
the
>> code. If we were to decide to let
contrib projects use GH issues then
I
>> would also like to switch the “core” to
GH issues. I see the whole
xwiki
>> contributing/committers as a single
community using the same
>> tools/practices as much as possible.
>>> - However, so far I see more drawbacks than pros: global search,
global
>> view of all issues, advanced features of
jira when they are needed,
graphs,
>> stats, single tool to support
>>> - I’d be for improving our configuration of JIRA (less fields visible
>> when creating issues, work on creating a template for more easily
creating
>> jira projects)
>>> - I’d like to keep a high level of quality of the XWiki ecosystem,
not
>> just at code level but at also tool
level. When people go to our jira
they
>> see it’s well organized and well
maintained (no missing versions,
issues
>> are closed when they should be, issues
are sorted, they have labels
>> applied, etc). This is part of what the XWiki project shows to the
outside
>> and I’m proud of it and I think when
contributors join the project
it’s
>> also because they want to learn all this
and they’re interested in
joining
>> a select community with strong software
development rules.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent
>>>
>>> On 24 Sep 2014 at 16:43:58, Sergiu Dumitriu (sergiu(a)xwiki.com
(mailto:
>> sergiu(a)xwiki.com)) wrote:
>>>
>>>> The same day that you send this vote, this article is published:
>>>>
>>
http://opensource.com/business/14/9/community-best-practices-new-era-open-s…
>>>>
>>>> Relevant quote:
>>>>
>>>> "[...] the contributor had to learn the specific mechanisms for
>>>> contributing to their chosen project. Thus, if a contributor worked
>>>> across several projects, they needed to learn several different
ways of
>>>> doing things.
>>>>
>>>> Now there’s GitHub, and six million people use it. If your project
is on
>>>> GitHub, it means that no one has
to learn special magic tricks to
>>>> contribute to your project, because every project on GitHub works in
>>>> basically the same way. In the time it used to take a user just to
>>>> figure out a project’s contribution mechanisms, a user can now fork
a
>>>> repo, make a fix, and submit a
pull request. The default instinct
of new
>>>> developers is no longer “suggest
a change”—the instinct is now “fix
the
>>>> problem”.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've been using GitHub issues for almost 3 years now, and I'm
pretty
>>>> happy with those. Sometimes I miss the extra features of Jira, but I
>>>> also like the simplicity of this simple issues tracker.
Supplementing
>>>> Jean's answer, creating a
Jira issue is a lot of work, having to
decide
>>>> what version is affected, the
relevant components, labels,
environment,
>>>> priority... A GitHub issue can
be just a title, and it takes
seconds to
>>>> create.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the arguments in favor of Jira are about aiding the XWiki
>>>> overlords: how do we measure ALL the activity across all projects?
How
>>>> is that relevant for a simple
contributor that just wants to
scratch an
>>>> itch? We should make it as easy
as possible to contribute.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another argument for GH Issues is locality: there's only one place
for
>>>> code, issues, roadmap, and
discussions. With GH Wiki, documentation
as
>> well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, I think there are good reasons why someone would prefer having
>>>> everything on GitHub, we shouldn't enforce what we thing is best on
>>>> someone else's project.
>>>>
>>>> On 09/23/2014 09:22 AM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> ATM the rule we have for contrib projects is to use JIRA (see
>> http://contrib.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/WebHome#HHostingtools)
>>>>>
>>>>> I’ve heard that some people have been proposing using other
trackers.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I’d like to poll your opinion on the following alternatives:
>>>>>
>>>>> Option A: all projects use JIRA
>>>>> ===============================
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the current option in use.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pros:
>>>>> * A single place for people to view and search for issues in the
XWiki
>> Ecosystem
>>>>>
>>>>> Cons:
>>>>> * For XWiki admins, creating a new JIRA project takes 5 minutes
>>>>>
>>>>> Option B: all projects use GitHub issues
>>>>> ========================================
>>>>>
>>>>> Pros:
>>>>> * Simple to set up for admins (hosted by GitHub)
>>>>> * Simple to use (too simple sometimes?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Cons:
>>>>> * No single place to search all issues related to XWiki (both JIRA
+
>> GitHub)
>>>>> * No single place to report JIRA issues
>>>>> * Tied to the SCM choice. When we stop using Git as our SCM and
move
>> to the next SCM tool we’ll have to
import all issues (see
>>
https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/com.atlassian.jira.plugins.jira-i…
>> )
>>>>> * Need to implement feature on extensions.xwiki.org to add a link
to
>> the issue tracker for each extension
>>>>>
>>>>> Option C: let each project decide
>>>>> =================================
>>>>>
>>>>> Pros:
>>>>> * Simple to set up for admins when project decides on GitHub
>>>>>
>>>>> Cons:
>>>>> * No single place to search all issues related to XWiki (both JIRA
+
>> GitHub)
>>>>> * No single place to report JIRA issues
>>>>> * Tied to the SCM choice. When we stop using Git as our SCM and
move
>> to the next SCM tool we’ll have to
import all issues (see
>>
https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/com.atlassian.jira.plugins.jira-i…
>> )
>>>>> * Need to implement feature on extensions.xwiki.org to add a link
to
>> the issue tracker for each extension
>>>>>
>>>>> Option D: XWiki Task Manager
>>>>> ============================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Task+Manager+Applicati…
>>>>>
>>>>> Pros:
>>>>> * Eat our own dog food.
>>>>> * Forces us to improve this extension
>>>>>
>>>>> Cons:
>>>>> * Pressure to fix bugs
>>>>> * Increases volume of data on xwiki.org and thus impact
performances
>>>>> * Maintenance cost: More
work when upgrading xwiki.org
>>>>> * No single place to search all issues related to XWiki (both JIRA
+
>> GitHub)
>>>>> * No single place to report JIRA issues
>>>>> * Need to implement feature on extensions.xwiki.org to add a link
to
>> the issue tracker for each extension
>>>>>
>>>>> WDYT? Other options?
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally and based on all pros/cons I think the best ATM is
really
>> Option A. And if we really want, it’s
possible to improve the cons by
doing
>> a bit of java coding:
>>
https://developer.atlassian.com/display/JIRADEV/Creating+a+Project+Template
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sergiu Dumitriu
>> http://purl.org/net/sergiu
>> _______________________________________________
>> devs mailing list
>> devs(a)xwiki.org
>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs