[Scons-dev] SCons, Mercurial, BitBucket, Git, and GitHub

[Tim Jenness]

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 05:31, Russel Winder <russel at winder.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
> Given we are moving from Tigris to GitHub, I can't get worked up about
> issue creation dates. To be honest I can't get that worked up about
> transferring the issues, I'd just start from scratch on GitHub issues
> and have people manually transfer the ones from Tigris they actually
> care about.
> 
> Having done something analogous twice, not doing a full automated
> transfer is a great way of getting rid of all the ancient and out of
> date issues.  Removing all the weight of ancient issues is a great way
> of creating new energy for a project.
> 

Much as the metadata retention part of me is pained by this, I think I agree that moving to git+GitHub is the important part of this discussion and there is some benefit to starting with a clean stack of issues. Any issues that have been filed more than a year ago are probably not going to get done. There may well be a handful of open tickets that are important and it might take less time to port those manually than do the full import. There is no harm in keeping the old system running for the history.

The GitHub migration tool seemed to do a good job of importing the hg repo directly when I tried it last year. Switching immediately after the v3 release would be a good plan from my point of view.

>> 
>> How to continue from here is definitely worth a discussion.
> 
> For a very few volunteers organisation such as this, low overhead, low
> cost, low maintenance, high leverage solutions are the only ones worth
> following up on. To this end if SCons is to move to GitHub then I
> suggest using the GitHub issues is the only viable solution for an
> issue tracker – no matter how bad the system is.

Agreed. I really like JIRA but GitHub issues are fine and it’s great to be able to link the issues and pull requests together and have issues close automatically.

— 
Tim Jenness