Fair point. My proposal (as explained in a previous message) is to move ActiveMQ first, and then the rest. Of course if the community agrees (PMC members with the input from users/contributors).
I'm focusing on ActiveMQ 6.0.0 right now, but it would be good to have a consensus just after. Thanks Regards JB On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 4:53 PM Christopher Shannon <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've thought about this some more and I think we should probably be > consistent with all projects. > > Justin has made a good point about there being 21 projects/repos. I think > the switch would be fine to GH issues, but if we did it I think we should > be consistent and have all projects managed the same way. It would be fine > to start with one project and move the others but I don't think it's a > great idea if we only have 1 project isolated with GH issues and the other > 20 projects in Jira. > > So I think we would need the PMC to agree to move all the projects to GH > for issue tracking and I don't think that support will be there to do that. > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 10:04 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > Yes, my point was we have the same features as base. > > > > For me, the key differences are: > > 1. User management, authentication, and span handling > > 2. Better integration with PR and Actions/Workflows > > 3. Release/version handling is probably better on Jira, but GH Issues > > milestone support is sufficient for us > > > > Just my $0.01 > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 3:27 PM Francois Papon > > <francois.pa...@openobject.fr> wrote: > > > > > > About the features Github also have projects, roadmap, kanban.... > > > > > > I cannot see which features are missing for the common ASF projects. > > > > > > On 18/10/2023 11:40, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > > > The opposite is also true: why not move as we have the same features > > > > 🙂 That's true Jira has much more features than GH issues, but we are > > > > not using it. If we would use Kanban, custom fields, etc, I would > > > > agree, but it's not the case currently. > >
