Git history problem

[Michael Brohl-3]

+1

Thanks Jacques,

Michael Brohl

ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de


Am 25.05.20 um 18:53 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:

> Hi All,
>
> I believe we are now pragmatically using JIRA + Patch, or GH + PR.
>
> Remains the question about allowing the creation of issues in GH. It
> seems to me that nobody actually asked for that since Jira is enough
> for our needs.
>
> So I should not need more than what we use currently and can put
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Question%3A+GitHub+or+Jira+or+both 
> in Attic now, right?
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 18/03/2020 à 18:22, Michael Brohl a écrit :
>> +1 James!
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> Am 18.03.20 um 17:13 schrieb James Yong:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I personally feel we should allow both JIRA and Github for issue
>>> management, and let contributers use their own judgement on which
>>> one to use. JIRA contains wealth of information and many open issues
>>> for review, while Github allows easier review of source codes.
>>> So do either JIRA + Patch, or GH + PR.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> James
>>>
>>> On 2020/03/14 10:43:31, Jacques Le Roux
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hi Benjamin, All,
>>>>
>>>> That's a good point indeed. And we 1st need to clearly define what
>>>> are the old and the new processes. Here is a try:
>>>>
>>>> The "old process" (not so old, changed with Git replacing Svn,
>>>> hence the discussion) is
>>>>
>>>>    * use Jira to create issues with possibly attached patches and
>>>> discussion there. With all what Jira affords...
>>>>    * You can also link a GH PR from Jira. And have a patch, then it
>>>> begins to be confusing (which one is the later, etc.)
>>>>    * You can create a PR in GH and discuss it there, nothing else.
>>>> There should not be crossed discussions in Jira and GH
>>>>    * I certainly miss other points, that's the gist
>>>>
>>>> The new process is not clearly defined, here are 2 possible versions:
>>>>
>>>>    * Jira is only used for history reason, no more issue creations
>>>> allowed
>>>>    * GH is used not only for PR but also to create issues (needs a
>>>> PMC agreement). It's then a replacement of Jira and we need to be
>>>> quite careful
>>>>      doing so.
>>>>
>>>>    * Jira continues to be used as is. With IMO some restrictions,
>>>> like: if you have a patch you don't create a PR, it's one or the
>>>> other way.
>>>>    * GH is used not only for PR but also to create issues (needs a
>>>> PMC agreement) an discuss them there. PR or attached patch can be
>>>> used to contribute.
>>>>
>>>> As you see, for me the question is not  "GitHub or Jira" but
>>>> "GitHub or Jira or both" I have changed the title of the related
>>>> wiki page accordingly:
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Question%3A+GitHub+or+Jira+or+both 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> HTH
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> Le 13/03/2020 à 17:41, Benjamin Jugl a écrit :
>>>>> I have been following this discussion for a while.  However, I
>>>>> still wonder if this discussion is about which of the two options
>>>>> is the better one.
>>>>> In my opinion, the discussion should rather be about whether the
>>>>> potential benefits of a new process justify the effort to change
>>>>> the old one. It
>>>>> seems to me at least that this aspect is being neglected a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 13.03.20 um 10:24 schrieb Michael Brohl:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to encourage everyone to visit the wiki page
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/GITHUB+plus+GIT+VS+JIRA+plus+GIT,
>>>>>> read
>>>>>> carefully, check, dicuss and ask questions to get to a good
>>>>>> information base for an important decision to make.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks everyone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael Brohl
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 12.03.20 um 17:28 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
>>>>>>> You are all invited to review, discuss in comments and possibly
>>>>>>> add pro and cons on this page
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/GITHUB+plus+GIT+VS+JIRA+plus+GIT 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would else become unreadable here...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully we will get to a consensus...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>

[adityasharma]

+1 Jacques. I think we are good with Jira for now and if needed we can add
a link to Jira in description like Apache Arrow[1]
Also, I would suggest that we should change the description of the
repository[2] from "Mirror of Apache OFBiz Framework" to a description of
OFBiz and the official website link similar to Apache Arrow.

1. https://github.com/apache/arrow#getting-involved
2. https://github.com/apache/ofbiz-framework

Thanks and Regards,
Aditya Sharma

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 5:42 PM Michael Brohl <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> +1
>
> Thanks Jacques,
>
> Michael Brohl
>
> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
>
>
> Am 25.05.20 um 18:53 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I believe we are now pragmatically using JIRA + Patch, or GH + PR.
> >
> > Remains the question about allowing the creation of issues in GH. It
> > seems to me that nobody actually asked for that since Jira is enough
> > for our needs.
> >
> > So I should not need more than what we use currently and can put
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Question%3A+GitHub+or+Jira+or+both
> > in Attic now, right?
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> > Le 18/03/2020 à 18:22, Michael Brohl a écrit :
> >> +1 James!
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 18.03.20 um 17:13 schrieb James Yong:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I personally feel we should allow both JIRA and Github for issue
> >>> management, and let contributers use their own judgement on which
> >>> one to use. JIRA contains wealth of information and many open issues
> >>> for review, while Github allows easier review of source codes.
> >>> So do either JIRA + Patch, or GH + PR.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> James
> >>>
> >>> On 2020/03/14 10:43:31, Jacques Le Roux
> >>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>> Hi Benjamin, All,
> >>>>
> >>>> That's a good point indeed. And we 1st need to clearly define what
> >>>> are the old and the new processes. Here is a try:
> >>>>
> >>>> The "old process" (not so old, changed with Git replacing Svn,
> >>>> hence the discussion) is
> >>>>
> >>>>    * use Jira to create issues with possibly attached patches and
> >>>> discussion there. With all what Jira affords...
> >>>>    * You can also link a GH PR from Jira. And have a patch, then it
> >>>> begins to be confusing (which one is the later, etc.)
> >>>>    * You can create a PR in GH and discuss it there, nothing else.
> >>>> There should not be crossed discussions in Jira and GH
> >>>>    * I certainly miss other points, that's the gist
> >>>>
> >>>> The new process is not clearly defined, here are 2 possible versions:
> >>>>
> >>>>    * Jira is only used for history reason, no more issue creations
> >>>> allowed
> >>>>    * GH is used not only for PR but also to create issues (needs a
> >>>> PMC agreement). It's then a replacement of Jira and we need to be
> >>>> quite careful
> >>>>      doing so.
> >>>>
> >>>>    * Jira continues to be used as is. With IMO some restrictions,
> >>>> like: if you have a patch you don't create a PR, it's one or the
> >>>> other way.
> >>>>    * GH is used not only for PR but also to create issues (needs a
> >>>> PMC agreement) an discuss them there. PR or attached patch can be
> >>>> used to contribute.
> >>>>
> >>>> As you see, for me the question is not  "GitHub or Jira" but
> >>>> "GitHub or Jira or both" I have changed the title of the related
> >>>> wiki page accordingly:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Question%3A+GitHub+or+Jira+or+both
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> HTH
> >>>>
> >>>> Jacques
> >>>>
> >>>> Le 13/03/2020 à 17:41, Benjamin Jugl a écrit :
> >>>>> I have been following this discussion for a while.  However, I
> >>>>> still wonder if this discussion is about which of the two options
> >>>>> is the better one.
> >>>>> In my opinion, the discussion should rather be about whether the
> >>>>> potential benefits of a new process justify the effort to change
> >>>>> the old one. It
> >>>>> seems to me at least that this aspect is being neglected a bit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Am 13.03.20 um 10:24 schrieb Michael Brohl:
> >>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'd like to encourage everyone to visit the wiki page
> >>>>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/GITHUB+plus+GIT+VS+JIRA+plus+GIT,
>
> >>>>>> read
> >>>>>> carefully, check, dicuss and ask questions to get to a good
> >>>>>> information base for an important decision to make.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks everyone,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Michael Brohl
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Am 12.03.20 um 17:28 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
> >>>>>>> You are all invited to review, discuss in comments and possibly
> >>>>>>> add pro and cons on this page
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/GITHUB+plus+GIT+VS+JIRA+plus+GIT
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It would else become unreadable here...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hopefully we will get to a consensus...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks All,

I will put the wiki page in Attic.

I totally agree Aditya, good idea. It seems we need to ask Infra for that. I see no way to do it ourselves. Also it seems the "labels" comes from
doap_OFBiz.rdf under site repo.
So maybe Infra can use the description there or, as you suggest, something more elaborated to welcome users that we would define (tht maybe put in
doap_OFBiz.rdf) with a link to OFBiz site

For the link to Jira it depends on README.adoc. But if we put a link to OFBiz site then the link to Jira is there.

Opinions?

Jacques

Le 26/05/2020 à 14:25, Aditya Sharma a écrit :

> +1 Jacques. I think we are good with Jira for now and if needed we can add
> a link to Jira in description like Apache Arrow[1]
> Also, I would suggest that we should change the description of the
> repository[2] from "Mirror of Apache OFBiz Framework" to a description of
> OFBiz and the official website link similar to Apache Arrow.
>
> 1. https://github.com/apache/arrow#getting-involved
> 2. https://github.com/apache/ofbiz-framework
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Aditya Sharma
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 5:42 PM Michael Brohl <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Thanks Jacques,
>>
>> Michael Brohl
>>
>> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
>>
>>
>> Am 25.05.20 um 18:53 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I believe we are now pragmatically using JIRA + Patch, or GH + PR.
>>>
>>> Remains the question about allowing the creation of issues in GH. It
>>> seems to me that nobody actually asked for that since Jira is enough
>>> for our needs.
>>>
>>> So I should not need more than what we use currently and can put
>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Question%3A+GitHub+or+Jira+or+both
>>> in Attic now, right?
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> Le 18/03/2020 à 18:22, Michael Brohl a écrit :
>>>> +1 James!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 18.03.20 um 17:13 schrieb James Yong:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally feel we should allow both JIRA and Github for issue
>>>>> management, and let contributers use their own judgement on which
>>>>> one to use. JIRA contains wealth of information and many open issues
>>>>> for review, while Github allows easier review of source codes.
>>>>> So do either JIRA + Patch, or GH + PR.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2020/03/14 10:43:31, Jacques Le Roux
>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Benjamin, All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a good point indeed. And we 1st need to clearly define what
>>>>>> are the old and the new processes. Here is a try:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "old process" (not so old, changed with Git replacing Svn,
>>>>>> hence the discussion) is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     * use Jira to create issues with possibly attached patches and
>>>>>> discussion there. With all what Jira affords...
>>>>>>     * You can also link a GH PR from Jira. And have a patch, then it
>>>>>> begins to be confusing (which one is the later, etc.)
>>>>>>     * You can create a PR in GH and discuss it there, nothing else.
>>>>>> There should not be crossed discussions in Jira and GH
>>>>>>     * I certainly miss other points, that's the gist
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The new process is not clearly defined, here are 2 possible versions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     * Jira is only used for history reason, no more issue creations
>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>     * GH is used not only for PR but also to create issues (needs a
>>>>>> PMC agreement). It's then a replacement of Jira and we need to be
>>>>>> quite careful
>>>>>>       doing so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     * Jira continues to be used as is. With IMO some restrictions,
>>>>>> like: if you have a patch you don't create a PR, it's one or the
>>>>>> other way.
>>>>>>     * GH is used not only for PR but also to create issues (needs a
>>>>>> PMC agreement) an discuss them there. PR or attached patch can be
>>>>>> used to contribute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you see, for me the question is not  "GitHub or Jira" but
>>>>>> "GitHub or Jira or both" I have changed the title of the related
>>>>>> wiki page accordingly:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Question%3A+GitHub+or+Jira+or+both
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HTH
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 13/03/2020 à 17:41, Benjamin Jugl a écrit :
>>>>>>> I have been following this discussion for a while.  However, I
>>>>>>> still wonder if this discussion is about which of the two options
>>>>>>> is the better one.
>>>>>>> In my opinion, the discussion should rather be about whether the
>>>>>>> potential benefits of a new process justify the effort to change
>>>>>>> the old one. It
>>>>>>> seems to me at least that this aspect is being neglected a bit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 13.03.20 um 10:24 schrieb Michael Brohl:
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd like to encourage everyone to visit the wiki page
>>>>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/GITHUB+plus+GIT+VS+JIRA+plus+GIT,
>>
>>>>>>>> read
>>>>>>>> carefully, check, dicuss and ask questions to get to a good
>>>>>>>> information base for an important decision to make.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks everyone,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Michael Brohl
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 12.03.20 um 17:28 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
>>>>>>>>> You are all invited to review, discuss in comments and possibly
>>>>>>>>> add pro and cons on this page
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/GITHUB+plus+GIT+VS+JIRA+plus+GIT
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would else become unreadable here...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hopefully we will get to a consensus...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>

[adityasharma]

>> So maybe Infra can use the description there
+1 for using the description

>> For the link to Jira it depends on README.adoc. But if we put a link to
OFBiz site then the link to Jira is there.
Makes sense

Thanks and regards,
Aditya Sharma

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 7:22 PM Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks All,
>
> I will put the wiki page in Attic.
>
> I totally agree Aditya, good idea. It seems we need to ask Infra for that.
> I see no way to do it ourselves. Also it seems the "labels" comes from
> doap_OFBiz.rdf under site repo.
> So maybe Infra can use the description there or, as you suggest, something
> more elaborated to welcome users that we would define (tht maybe put in
> doap_OFBiz.rdf) with a link to OFBiz site
>
> For the link to Jira it depends on README.adoc. But if we put a link to
> OFBiz site then the link to Jira is there.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 26/05/2020 à 14:25, Aditya Sharma a écrit :
> > +1 Jacques. I think we are good with Jira for now and if needed we can
> add
> > a link to Jira in description like Apache Arrow[1]
> > Also, I would suggest that we should change the description of the
> > repository[2] from "Mirror of Apache OFBiz Framework" to a description of
> > OFBiz and the official website link similar to Apache Arrow.
> >
> > 1. https://github.com/apache/arrow#getting-involved
> > 2. https://github.com/apache/ofbiz-framework
> >
> > Thanks and Regards,
> > Aditya Sharma
> >
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 5:42 PM Michael Brohl <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Thanks Jacques,
> >>
> >> Michael Brohl
> >>
> >> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 25.05.20 um 18:53 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> I believe we are now pragmatically using JIRA + Patch, or GH + PR.
> >>>
> >>> Remains the question about allowing the creation of issues in GH. It
> >>> seems to me that nobody actually asked for that since Jira is enough
> >>> for our needs.
> >>>
> >>> So I should not need more than what we use currently and can put
> >>>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Question%3A+GitHub+or+Jira+or+both
> >>> in Attic now, right?
> >>>
> >>> Jacques
> >>>
> >>> Le 18/03/2020 à 18:22, Michael Brohl a écrit :
> >>>> +1 James!
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Michael
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 18.03.20 um 17:13 schrieb James Yong:
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I personally feel we should allow both JIRA and Github for issue
> >>>>> management, and let contributers use their own judgement on which
> >>>>> one to use. JIRA contains wealth of information and many open issues
> >>>>> for review, while Github allows easier review of source codes.
> >>>>> So do either JIRA + Patch, or GH + PR.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> James
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 2020/03/14 10:43:31, Jacques Le Roux
> >>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Benjamin, All,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's a good point indeed. And we 1st need to clearly define what
> >>>>>> are the old and the new processes. Here is a try:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The "old process" (not so old, changed with Git replacing Svn,
> >>>>>> hence the discussion) is
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     * use Jira to create issues with possibly attached patches and
> >>>>>> discussion there. With all what Jira affords...
> >>>>>>     * You can also link a GH PR from Jira. And have a patch, then it
> >>>>>> begins to be confusing (which one is the later, etc.)
> >>>>>>     * You can create a PR in GH and discuss it there, nothing else.
> >>>>>> There should not be crossed discussions in Jira and GH
> >>>>>>     * I certainly miss other points, that's the gist
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The new process is not clearly defined, here are 2 possible
> versions:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     * Jira is only used for history reason, no more issue creations
> >>>>>> allowed
> >>>>>>     * GH is used not only for PR but also to create issues (needs a
> >>>>>> PMC agreement). It's then a replacement of Jira and we need to be
> >>>>>> quite careful
> >>>>>>       doing so.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     * Jira continues to be used as is. With IMO some restrictions,
> >>>>>> like: if you have a patch you don't create a PR, it's one or the
> >>>>>> other way.
> >>>>>>     * GH is used not only for PR but also to create issues (needs a
> >>>>>> PMC agreement) an discuss them there. PR or attached patch can be
> >>>>>> used to contribute.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As you see, for me the question is not  "GitHub or Jira" but
> >>>>>> "GitHub or Jira or both" I have changed the title of the related
> >>>>>> wiki page accordingly:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Question%3A+GitHub+or+Jira+or+both
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> HTH
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Le 13/03/2020 à 17:41, Benjamin Jugl a écrit :
> >>>>>>> I have been following this discussion for a while.  However, I
> >>>>>>> still wonder if this discussion is about which of the two options
> >>>>>>> is the better one.
> >>>>>>> In my opinion, the discussion should rather be about whether the
> >>>>>>> potential benefits of a new process justify the effort to change
> >>>>>>> the old one. It
> >>>>>>> seems to me at least that this aspect is being neglected a bit.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Am 13.03.20 um 10:24 schrieb Michael Brohl:
> >>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'd like to encourage everyone to visit the wiki page
> >>>>>>>>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/GITHUB+plus+GIT+VS+JIRA+plus+GIT
> ,
> >>
> >>>>>>>> read
> >>>>>>>> carefully, check, dicuss and ask questions to get to a good
> >>>>>>>> information base for an important decision to make.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks everyone,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Michael Brohl
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Am 12.03.20 um 17:28 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
> >>>>>>>>> You are all invited to review, discuss in comments and possibly
> >>>>>>>>> add pro and cons on this page
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/GITHUB+plus+GIT+VS+JIRA+plus+GIT
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It would else become unreadable here...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hopefully we will get to a consensus...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi All,

I created INFRA-20424 for that.

Food for thought: I also noticed some more information in Arrow README.md file.

[](https://ci.appveyor.com/project/ApacheSoftwareFoundation/arrow/branch/master)
[](https://codecov.io/gh/apache/arrow?branch=master)
[](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/list?sort=-opened&can=1&q=proj:arrow)
[](https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/LICENSE.txt)
[](https://twitter.com/apachearrow)

We could maybe provide something similar in our README.adoc?

With commit 26bb8f602fcb7bd3a3d4a8b4cfab67df35a45764 I added an image with a link to the license at least. I'm unsure how to do the rest, tweeter
notably would be cool...

I also thought that we have no README.adoc in ofbiz-plugins repo. We could copy the one in ofbiz-framework. That mean to copy it regularly to maintain
the sync, what do you think?

Jacques

Le 28/05/2020 à 08:20, Aditya Sharma a écrit :

>>> So maybe Infra can use the description there
> +1 for using the description
>
>>> For the link to Jira it depends on README.adoc. But if we put a link to
> OFBiz site then the link to Jira is there.
> Makes sense
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Aditya Sharma
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 7:22 PM Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks All,
>>
>> I will put the wiki page in Attic.
>>
>> I totally agree Aditya, good idea. It seems we need to ask Infra for that.
>> I see no way to do it ourselves. Also it seems the "labels" comes from
>> doap_OFBiz.rdf under site repo.
>> So maybe Infra can use the description there or, as you suggest, something
>> more elaborated to welcome users that we would define (tht maybe put in
>> doap_OFBiz.rdf) with a link to OFBiz site
>>
>> For the link to Jira it depends on README.adoc. But if we put a link to
>> OFBiz site then the link to Jira is there.
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> Le 26/05/2020 à 14:25, Aditya Sharma a écrit :
>>> +1 Jacques. I think we are good with Jira for now and if needed we can
>> add
>>> a link to Jira in description like Apache Arrow[1]
>>> Also, I would suggest that we should change the description of the
>>> repository[2] from "Mirror of Apache OFBiz Framework" to a description of
>>> OFBiz and the official website link similar to Apache Arrow.
>>>
>>> 1. https://github.com/apache/arrow#getting-involved
>>> 2. https://github.com/apache/ofbiz-framework
>>>
>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>> Aditya Sharma
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 5:42 PM Michael Brohl <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Jacques,
>>>>
>>>> Michael Brohl
>>>>
>>>> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 25.05.20 um 18:53 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe we are now pragmatically using JIRA + Patch, or GH + PR.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remains the question about allowing the creation of issues in GH. It
>>>>> seems to me that nobody actually asked for that since Jira is enough
>>>>> for our needs.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I should not need more than what we use currently and can put
>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Question%3A+GitHub+or+Jira+or+both
>>>>> in Attic now, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 18/03/2020 à 18:22, Michael Brohl a écrit :
>>>>>> +1 James!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 18.03.20 um 17:13 schrieb James Yong:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I personally feel we should allow both JIRA and Github for issue
>>>>>>> management, and let contributers use their own judgement on which
>>>>>>> one to use. JIRA contains wealth of information and many open issues
>>>>>>> for review, while Github allows easier review of source codes.
>>>>>>> So do either JIRA + Patch, or GH + PR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2020/03/14 10:43:31, Jacques Le Roux
>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Benjamin, All,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's a good point indeed. And we 1st need to clearly define what
>>>>>>>> are the old and the new processes. Here is a try:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "old process" (not so old, changed with Git replacing Svn,
>>>>>>>> hence the discussion) is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      * use Jira to create issues with possibly attached patches and
>>>>>>>> discussion there. With all what Jira affords...
>>>>>>>>      * You can also link a GH PR from Jira. And have a patch, then it
>>>>>>>> begins to be confusing (which one is the later, etc.)
>>>>>>>>      * You can create a PR in GH and discuss it there, nothing else.
>>>>>>>> There should not be crossed discussions in Jira and GH
>>>>>>>>      * I certainly miss other points, that's the gist
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The new process is not clearly defined, here are 2 possible
>> versions:
>>>>>>>>      * Jira is only used for history reason, no more issue creations
>>>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>>>      * GH is used not only for PR but also to create issues (needs a
>>>>>>>> PMC agreement). It's then a replacement of Jira and we need to be
>>>>>>>> quite careful
>>>>>>>>        doing so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      * Jira continues to be used as is. With IMO some restrictions,
>>>>>>>> like: if you have a patch you don't create a PR, it's one or the
>>>>>>>> other way.
>>>>>>>>      * GH is used not only for PR but also to create issues (needs a
>>>>>>>> PMC agreement) an discuss them there. PR or attached patch can be
>>>>>>>> used to contribute.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As you see, for me the question is not  "GitHub or Jira" but
>>>>>>>> "GitHub or Jira or both" I have changed the title of the related
>>>>>>>> wiki page accordingly:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Question%3A+GitHub+or+Jira+or+both
>>>>>>>> HTH
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le 13/03/2020 à 17:41, Benjamin Jugl a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> I have been following this discussion for a while.  However, I
>>>>>>>>> still wonder if this discussion is about which of the two options
>>>>>>>>> is the better one.
>>>>>>>>> In my opinion, the discussion should rather be about whether the
>>>>>>>>> potential benefits of a new process justify the effort to change
>>>>>>>>> the old one. It
>>>>>>>>> seems to me at least that this aspect is being neglected a bit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 13.03.20 um 10:24 schrieb Michael Brohl:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to encourage everyone to visit the wiki page
>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/GITHUB+plus+GIT+VS+JIRA+plus+GIT
>> ,
>>>>>>>>>> read
>>>>>>>>>> carefully, check, dicuss and ask questions to get to a good
>>>>>>>>>> information base for an important decision to make.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Brohl
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 12.03.20 um 17:28 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
>>>>>>>>>>> You are all invited to review, discuss in comments and possibly
>>>>>>>>>>> add pro and cons on this page
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/GITHUB+plus+GIT+VS+JIRA+plus+GIT
>>>>>>>>>>> It would else become unreadable here...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully we will get to a consensus...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>