+1 for github actions. It improves the traceability between branches, commits, PRs, and GitHub issues. It also opens the opportunity to document each release in the https://github.com/apache/activemq/releases
On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 10:44 AM Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > I am good with one vote for all three items > > Reminder— The Jenkinsfile should not be removed— it is still use it for > the s390x test builds. > > Thanks, > Matt > > > On Dec 15, 2025, at 9:43 AM, Justin Bertram <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Is there a specific connection between using GHA, Dependabot, and GitHub > > Issues other than they are all services provided by GitHub? Each of these > > seems like independent discussions that shouldn't necessarily be > conflated. > > > > Regarding GitHub Issues specifically, it's not clear what substantive and > > relevant changes have occurred since the last time we had this > discussion. > > > > In any case, can you provide any further details about the "new migration > > script from ASF Infra"? What exactly does it do? I > > > > > > Justin > > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 3:08 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> I would like to re-open the discussion regarding migrating from Jira to > >> GitHub Issues. > >> > >> I recently created a pull request to move our PR checks from Jenkins to > >> GitHub Actions (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/1497). This > change > >> significantly improves build/test time and enables easier dependency > >> updates via Dependabot. I will continue working with Jean-Louis to > >> stabilize and improve the tests. > >> > >> Given the improved integration with GitHub Actions, and the > availability of > >> a new migration script from ASF Infra, I believe it is a good time to > >> reconsider this move. Many other Apache projects have made this > transition > >> successfully. > >> > >> I am +1 for adopting GitHub Issues and GitHub Actions. > >> > >> What are your thoughts? > >> > >> Regards, > >> JB > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 9:52 PM Justin Bertram <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> There's been a few threads about this general subject, but most have > >>> concentrated on Classic in particular. I think it's worth discussing > >>> migration of ActiveMQ as a whole and diving a bit deeper into the > details > >>> of why a migration makes (or doesn't make) sense and what the > challenges > >>> may be. > >>> > >>> To this end I've put together this document [1]. I hope it will be of > >>> service to the community as we consider this option. > >>> > >>> > >>> Justin > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> > >>> > >> > https://github.com/jbertram/activemq-website/wiki/Apache-ActiveMQ-GitHub-Issues-Migration-Review > >>> > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact > > > -- Atentamente: César Hernández.
