+1, especially for Issue tracking. I've been using GitHub issue tracking instead of Jira on other projects I contribute to and the experience is much better with the integration between the Issues and PRs.
On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 12:58 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Hi Krzysztof > > The proposal is for ActiveMQ. But if other parts of ActiveMQ umbrella want > to move to GitHub issues, I can help. > > Thanks ! > Regards > JB > > Le ven. 13 oct. 2023 à 20:31, Havret <hav...@apache.org> a écrit : > > > Hi JB, > > > > In my humble opinion, moving to GitHub issues would greatly benefit all > > projects under the ActiveMQ umbrella. Using Jira has been cumbersome. > > > > Best, > > Krzysztof > > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 6:05 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > Even if we are pretty busy and focused on ActiveMQ 6.0.0 release > > > preparation (as said in another email, I should be able to submit the > > > release to vote next week), I think we can anticipate a little the > > > future of ActiveMQ. > > > ActiveMQ 6.0.0 is a major milestone for the project, heading to a more > > > modern approach (I started a PoC to remove Spring dep and using SPI > > > like approach at broker side, I will keep you posted about that) for > > > the codebase, website, and our developer experience. > > > > > > I would like to discuss: > > > 1. Moving from Apache Jenkins to GitHub Actions, using multiple > > > workflows, more decoupled, with potentially more "executors" to build > > > and leveraging GitHub Actions "modules". > > > 2. Moving from Apache Jira to GitHub Issues. Several Apache projects > > > already use GitHub Issues. At OPS4J we also migrated from Jira to GH > > > Issues. We were able to import everything from Jira without losing > > > data. I think it would also be a good opportunity to do some cleanup, > > > maybe starting with only tickets for 6.x. > > > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > > > Regards > > > JB > > > > > >
