Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

Jeff Zemerick
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

Andy Christianson-2
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 <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:56 PM
To: [hidden email]
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


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

Joe Witt
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
<[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:56 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> 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
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

Marc Parisi
If we don't create a project, I"m guessing the label would serve to reduce
the number of unlabeled tickets by virtue of having some labeled as JAVA?
It seems that without separate projects we won't eliminate the problem,
entirely. It's a ticket creation issue, one of which I know I've caused at
some point. It seems a separate project is the most likely to yield the
desired result...

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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
> <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:56 PM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > 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
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

Andy Christianson-2
In reply to this post by Joe Witt
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 <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:10 AM
To: [hidden email]
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
<[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:56 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> 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
>
>



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

Kevin Doran
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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
    Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:10 AM
    To: [hidden email]
    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
    <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
    > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:56 PM
    > To: [hidden email]
    > 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
    >
    >
   
   
   
   


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

Andy Christianson-2
Making it required sounds like an improvement, at the very least.

-Andy I.C.
________________________________________
From: Kevin Doran <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:22 AM
To: [hidden email]
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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
    Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:10 AM
    To: [hidden email]
    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
    <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
    > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:56 PM
    > To: [hidden email]
    > 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
    >
    >








Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

Jeff Zemerick
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 <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Making it required sounds like an improvement, at the very least.
>
> -Andy I.C.
> ________________________________________
> From: Kevin Doran <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:22 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> 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" <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
>     Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:10 AM
>     To: [hidden email]
>     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
>     <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>     > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:56 PM
>     > To: [hidden email]
>     > 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
>     >
>     >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

Kevin Doran
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" <[hidden email]> 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 <
    [hidden email]> wrote:
   
    > Making it required sounds like an improvement, at the very least.
    >
    > -Andy I.C.
    > ________________________________________
    > From: Kevin Doran <[hidden email]>
    > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:22 AM
    > To: [hidden email]
    > 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" <[hidden email]>
    > 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 <[hidden email]>
    >     Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:10 AM
    >     To: [hidden email]
    >     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
    >     <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
    >     > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:56 PM
    >     > To: [hidden email]
    >     > 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
    >     >
    >     >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
   


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

Joe Witt
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 <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <
>     [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>     > Making it required sounds like an improvement, at the very least.
>     >
>     > -Andy I.C.
>     > ________________________________________
>     > From: Kevin Doran <[hidden email]>
>     > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:22 AM
>     > To: [hidden email]
>     > 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" <[hidden email]>
>     > 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 <[hidden email]>
>     >     Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:10 AM
>     >     To: [hidden email]
>     >     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
>     >     <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>     >     > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:56 PM
>     >     > To: [hidden email]
>     >     > 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
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

Jeff Zemerick
I'm +1 to that. Best long term method, I'd think.

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <
> >     [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >     > Making it required sounds like an improvement, at the very least.
> >     >
> >     > -Andy I.C.
> >     > ________________________________________
> >     > From: Kevin Doran <[hidden email]>
> >     > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:22 AM
> >     > To: [hidden email]
> >     > 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" <
> [hidden email]>
> >     > 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 <[hidden email]>
> >     >     Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:10 AM
> >     >     To: [hidden email]
> >     >     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
> >     >     <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >     >     > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:56 PM
> >     >     > To: [hidden email]
> >     >     > 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
> >     >     >
> >     >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

trkurc
Administrator
In reply to this post by Joe Witt
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <
> >     [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >     > Making it required sounds like an improvement, at the very least.
> >     >
> >     > -Andy I.C.
> >     > ________________________________________
> >     > From: Kevin Doran <[hidden email]>
> >     > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:22 AM
> >     > To: [hidden email]
> >     > 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" <
> [hidden email]>
> >     > 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 <[hidden email]>
> >     >     Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:10 AM
> >     >     To: [hidden email]
> >     >     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
> >     >     <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >     >     > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:56 PM
> >     >     > To: [hidden email]
> >     >     > 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
> >     >     >
> >     >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

Jeff Zemerick
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <
> > >     [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >     > Making it required sounds like an improvement, at the very least.
> > >     >
> > >     > -Andy I.C.
> > >     > ________________________________________
> > >     > From: Kevin Doran <[hidden email]>
> > >     > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:22 AM
> > >     > To: [hidden email]
> > >     > 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" <
> > [hidden email]>
> > >     > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > >     >     Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:10 AM
> > >     >     To: [hidden email]
> > >     >     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
> > >     >     <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > >     >     > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:56 PM
> > >     >     > To: [hidden email]
> > >     >     > 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
> > >     >     >
> > >     >     >
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

Kevin Doran
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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
    > > 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <
    > > >     [hidden email]> wrote:
    > > >
    > > >     > Making it required sounds like an improvement, at the very least.
    > > >     >
    > > >     > -Andy I.C.
    > > >     > ________________________________________
    > > >     > From: Kevin Doran <[hidden email]>
    > > >     > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:22 AM
    > > >     > To: [hidden email]
    > > >     > 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" <
    > > [hidden email]>
    > > >     > 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 <[hidden email]>
    > > >     >     Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:10 AM
    > > >     >     To: [hidden email]
    > > >     >     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
    > > >     >     <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
    > > >     >     > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:56 PM
    > > >     >     > To: [hidden email]
    > > >     >     > 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
    > > >     >     >
    > > >     >     >
    > > >     >
    > > >     >
    > > >     >
    > > >     >
    > > >     >
    > > >     >
    > > >     >
    > > >     >
    > > >     >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    >
   


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

Andy Christianson-2
+1

On 8/22/17, 11:57 AM, "Kevin Doran" <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
        > > 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <
        > > >     [hidden email]> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >     > Making it required sounds like an improvement, at the very least.
        > > >     >
        > > >     > -Andy I.C.
        > > >     > ________________________________________
        > > >     > From: Kevin Doran <[hidden email]>
        > > >     > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:22 AM
        > > >     > To: [hidden email]
        > > >     > 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" <
        > > [hidden email]>
        > > >     > 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 <[hidden email]>
        > > >     >     Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:10 AM
        > > >     >     To: [hidden email]
        > > >     >     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
        > > >     >     <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
        > > >     >     > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:56 PM
        > > >     >     > To: [hidden email]
        > > >     >     > 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
        > > >     >     >
        > > >     >     >
        > > >     >
        > > >     >
        > > >     >
        > > >     >
        > > >     >
        > > >     >
        > > >     >
        > > >     >
        > > >     >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
       
   
   
   

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

Aldrin Piri
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 <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
> On 8/22/17, 11:57 AM, "Kevin Doran" <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <
> [hidden email]>
>         > > 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" <[hidden email]>
> 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 <
>         > > >     [hidden email]> wrote:
>         > > >
>         > > >     > Making it required sounds like an improvement, at the
> very least.
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     > -Andy I.C.
>         > > >     > ________________________________________
>         > > >     > From: Kevin Doran <[hidden email]>
>         > > >     > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:22 AM
>         > > >     > To: [hidden email]
>         > > >     > 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" <
>         > > [hidden email]>
>         > > >     > 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 <[hidden email]>
>         > > >     >     Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:10 AM
>         > > >     >     To: [hidden email]
>         > > >     >     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
>         > > >     >     <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>         > > >     >     > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:56 PM
>         > > >     >     > To: [hidden email]
>         > > >     >     > 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
>         > > >     >     >
>         > > >     >     >
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >
>         > > >     >
>         > > >
>         > > >
>         > > >
>         > >
>         >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

Aldrin Piri
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On 8/22/17, 11:57 AM, "Kevin Doran" <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> 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 <
>> [hidden email]>
>>         > > 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" <[hidden email]>
>> 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 <
>>         > > >     [hidden email]> wrote:
>>         > > >
>>         > > >     > Making it required sounds like an improvement, at the
>> very least.
>>         > > >     >
>>         > > >     > -Andy I.C.
>>         > > >     > ________________________________________
>>         > > >     > From: Kevin Doran <[hidden email]>
>>         > > >     > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:22 AM
>>         > > >     > To: [hidden email]
>>         > > >     > 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" <
>>         > > [hidden email]>
>>         > > >     > 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 <[hidden email]>
>>         > > >     >     Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:10 AM
>>         > > >     >     To: [hidden email]
>>         > > >     >     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
>>         > > >     >     <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>         > > >     >     > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:56 PM
>>         > > >     >     > To: [hidden email]
>>         > > >     >     > 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
>>         > > >     >     >
>>         > > >     >     >
>>         > > >     >
>>         > > >     >
>>         > > >     >
>>         > > >     >
>>         > > >     >
>>         > > >     >
>>         > > >     >
>>         > > >     >
>>         > > >     >
>>         > > >
>>         > > >
>>         > > >
>>         > >
>>         >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

Andy Christianson-2
Glad to hear it! Thanks for taking the time.

-Andy I.C.

On 9/19/17, 9:57 AM, "Aldrin Piri" <[hidden email]> wrote:

    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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
    > [hidden email]> wrote:
    >
    >> +1
    >>
    >> On 8/22/17, 11:57 AM, "Kevin Doran" <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
    >> 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 <[hidden email]>
    >> 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 <
    >> [hidden email]>
    >>         > > 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" <[hidden email]>
    >> 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 <
    >>         > > >     [hidden email]> wrote:
    >>         > > >
    >>         > > >     > Making it required sounds like an improvement, at the
    >> very least.
    >>         > > >     >
    >>         > > >     > -Andy I.C.
    >>         > > >     > ________________________________________
    >>         > > >     > From: Kevin Doran <[hidden email]>
    >>         > > >     > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:22 AM
    >>         > > >     > To: [hidden email]
    >>         > > >     > 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" <
    >>         > > [hidden email]>
    >>         > > >     > 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 <[hidden email]>
    >>         > > >     >     Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:10 AM
    >>         > > >     >     To: [hidden email]
    >>         > > >     >     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
    >>         > > >     >     <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
    >>         > > >     >     > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:56 PM
    >>         > > >     >     > To: [hidden email]
    >>         > > >     >     > 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
    >>         > > >     >     >
    >>         > > >     >     >
    >>         > > >     >
    >>         > > >     >
    >>         > > >     >
    >>         > > >     >
    >>         > > >     >
    >>         > > >     >
    >>         > > >     >
    >>         > > >     >
    >>         > > >     >
    >>         > > >
    >>         > > >
    >>         > > >
    >>         > >
    >>         >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
   

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

Jeff Zemerick
In reply to this post by Aldrin Piri
Great! Thanks!

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Aldrin Piri <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On 8/22/17, 11:57 AM, "Kevin Doran" <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >> 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> >> 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 <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >>         > > 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" <[hidden email]>
> >> 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 <
> >>         > > >     [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>         > > >
> >>         > > >     > Making it required sounds like an improvement, at
> the
> >> very least.
> >>         > > >     >
> >>         > > >     > -Andy I.C.
> >>         > > >     > ________________________________________
> >>         > > >     > From: Kevin Doran <[hidden email]>
> >>         > > >     > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:22 AM
> >>         > > >     > To: [hidden email]
> >>         > > >     > 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" <
> >>         > > [hidden email]>
> >>         > > >     > 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>         > > >     >     Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:10 AM
> >>         > > >     >     To: [hidden email]
> >>         > > >     >     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
> >>         > > >     >     <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>         > > >     >     > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:56 PM
> >>         > > >     >     > To: [hidden email]
> >>         > > >     >     > 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
> >>         > > >     >     >
> >>         > > >     >     >
> >>         > > >     >
> >>         > > >     >
> >>         > > >     >
> >>         > > >     >
> >>         > > >     >
> >>         > > >     >
> >>         > > >     >
> >>         > > >     >
> >>         > > >     >
> >>         > > >
> >>         > > >
> >>         > > >
> >>         > >
> >>         >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

Aldrin Piri
One final note, is that I intend to move all CPP related issues to this
tracker.  The full thought process is captured on the JIRA [1].

In quick summary though, JIRA will redirect all issues to their new
location/issue and versions are getting mapped to those in the MINIFICPP
project without the "cpp-" prefix.

Please share your feedback if this seems undesirable and we can figure out
a way that makes sense.

--aldrin

[1]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFICPP-42?focusedCommentId=16172022&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-16172022

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Jeff Zemerick <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Great! Thanks!
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Aldrin Piri <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> On 8/22/17, 11:57 AM, "Kevin Doran" <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> > >> 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 <
> > [hidden email]>
> > >> 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 <
> > >> [hidden email]>
> > >>         > > 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" <
> [hidden email]>
> > >> 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
> <
> > >>         > > >     [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>         > > >
> > >>         > > >     > Making it required sounds like an improvement, at
> > the
> > >> very least.
> > >>         > > >     >
> > >>         > > >     > -Andy I.C.
> > >>         > > >     > ________________________________________
> > >>         > > >     > From: Kevin Doran <[hidden email]>
> > >>         > > >     > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:22 AM
> > >>         > > >     > To: [hidden email]
> > >>         > > >     > 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" <
> > >>         > > [hidden email]>
> > >>         > > >     > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > >>         > > >     >     Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:10 AM
> > >>         > > >     >     To: [hidden email]
> > >>         > > >     >     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
> > >>         > > >     >     <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > >>         > > >     >     > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:56 PM
> > >>         > > >     >     > To: [hidden email]
> > >>         > > >     >     > 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
> > >>         > > >     >     >
> > >>         > > >     >     >
> > >>         > > >     >
> > >>         > > >     >
> > >>         > > >     >
> > >>         > > >     >
> > >>         > > >     >
> > >>         > > >     >
> > >>         > > >     >
> > >>         > > >     >
> > >>         > > >     >
> > >>         > > >
> > >>         > > >
> > >>         > > >
> > >>         > >
> > >>         >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>