Hi Justin, That was intentional: I wanted to bring the discussion about GitHub Issues and GitHub Actions together due to the ongoing work on Actions.
I agree to split the discussions and, if needed, call for separate votes on each topic. Regards, JB On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 9:19 AM Justin Bertram <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
