Page Comparison

...

The second option would be to create a different profile for each issue type, using a JQL in the Filter by issue type, for example, issueType=Bug, issueType=Epic, and so on. Doing this and then migrating in order or hierarchy, first Epics, then Bugs, Tasks, Stories, and Subtasks in the end, would solve the status mapping problem. Although, in. In the Cloud-Native version one problem arises, the linking between issues is made within the profile, for that reason, issues migrated with the profile filtered for Epics would not be linked to the issues migrated with the profile filter by Bugs, and that would apply to all issue types.

...

Losing the links between the issues would not be an option to for our client, specially especially when talking about Epics and subtasks, that information in is essential for the workflow and hierarchy of the issues. They also didn’t want to use the Self-Hosted version, because it involves installation in Windows machine.

\uD83D\uDCD8 Workaround

The third option is using only one profile. That would mean that within the same profile, the links between issues would not be lost. The user would need to respect Hierarchy and migrate the issues in the following order:
1. Epics
2. Bugs, Tasks, Stories, …
3. Subtasks.

...

1. Create a profile with all the mapping and configurations specific for Epics

2. Apply a filter in Filters, Jira JQL issueType=Epic

3. 

4. (OPTIONAL) At this point the profile is ready to perform a migration, so as a backup: Clone the profile to save the configurations, this new cloned profile should NOT be used for migration.

5. Start initial sync that should include ALL epics, be sure to add a old date that doesn’t exclude any older issues. To be sure, go to the Jira project and run the JQL applied in the filter, check the number of issues. They should ALL be migrated at this point.

6. After Epics are all migrated, go edit the same profile and repeat the steps 1-5 for a different issue type by using the hierarchy order.

...