I don't recall any questions about out issue tracker recently on the mailing lists or on Slack. Did I miss something? In any case, it's no secret as to why we're still using Jira. This subject has been discussed several times [1] [2] [3] [4], most recently on this very thread. Anybody whose been participating in the community would likely remember, and if not it's fairly easy to search it up.
>From a user's point-of-view I can certainly see why GitHub Issues would be appealing. All things being equal, I can see how it would appeal to maintainers as well. About 20 months ago I put together a document [5] outlining this migration discussion. However, nobody has, as of yet, proposed a credible, comprehensive plan addressing the migration challenges. It's easy to say "let's migrate," but without a plan I just don't see how we can responsibly evaluate the options. We need to agree upon and document workflows and conventions before the migration happens or things will almost certainly be a mess. This might not be a big deal for the average user or the occasional contributor, but for folks who work with this code-base and others like it on a daily basis it can make a significant difference. I'm going to update the review doc to clarify the challenges and to eliminate Artemis since it's not relevant to this discussion any longer. This thread was originally about migrating from Jira to GitHub Issues. However, the subject of GitHub Actions and Dependabot adoption has also now been raised and folks are responding independently about these subjects now. Although related, these really are independent subjects. It would be nice to keep them separate to simplify the issue-tracker discussion, if possible. Justin [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/w3cl57zs7xmhk38mpzygp29whmmdbjkw [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/zqp72y8jpsc4q9g9z4skxjyozxs8gr8r [3] https://lists.apache.org/thread/9ryfs0y8gnl2z4o2d7q646ffdrs9zzcp [4] https://lists.apache.org/thread/93v6b5xxmthsypcwgvhotsmm4y2whdkm [5] https://github.com/jbertram/activemq-website/wiki/Apache-ActiveMQ-GitHub-Issues-Migration-Review On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 10:06 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
