I am fine with switching if everyone else wants to (It doesn't matter to me which one we use) but is there a good solution with GitHub issues for assigning issues to multiple releases? This came up before by Robbie who pointed out it's not great when doing multiple releases and backports. So we would need to decide how to handle that (maybe use labels or projects) because you can't assign multiple milestones to an issue.
Chris On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 8:51 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > You are correct that there is no direct connection between GitHub > Actions/Dependabot and GitHub Issues, but the move towards using more > GitHub services provides a smoother integration experience overall. > > The primary reason for revisiting this discussion now is the increasing > number of requests from contributors asking why we are still using Jira. > This, coupled with the work on GitHub Actions, suggests that the timing is > right to reconsider the switch. > > The ASF Infrastructure tool for migration is available here: > https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-jira-issues-importer > > Based on the feedback in this thread, it appears we are moving towards a > consensus for adopting GitHub Issues. > > Regards, > JB > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 7:43 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 > > > > > > > > > >
