What we usually do is duplicate the issue with different target releases. Regards JB
On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 7:30 AM Christopher Shannon < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
