+1 for github actions. Agree with points provided.
Thanks, Ken On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 9:29 AM Cesar Hernandez <[email protected]> wrote: > +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. >
