Hi everyone,

I'd like to start a discussion on how we should manage issue tracking for
non-mainline Apache Fineract projects.
Background

The Apache Fineract PMC currently manages several repositories outside the
main apache/fineract repository. These repositories explore new
capabilities, prototypes, and complementary services that are unlikely to
be merged into the main Fineract codebase due to differences in scope,
technology stack, or intended users.

Some examples include:

   - fineract-backoffice-ui
   Work-in-progress Backoffice UI for Apache Fineract (Angular 21+)
   - fineract-consumer-facing
   Consumer-facing reference application originally developed as a GSoC
   proof-of-concept (Spring Boot + Angular)
   - fineract-loan-origination
   Loan origination service originally developed as a GSoC proof-of-concept
   (Spring Boot)
   - fineract-business-intelligence
   Business Intelligence connector originally developed as a GSoC
   proof-of-concept (Python)

Over time, I expect these repositories to become open for broader community
contributions and eventually have their own release processes where
appropriate.
Problem

These repositories are related to Apache Fineract but are not part of the
main apache/fineract project.

As they grow, contributors need a clear way to:

   - report bugs
   - request features
   - track development
   - understand whether an issue belongs to the core project or one of
   these related repositories

Today, most issues are tracked in the FINERACT Jira project. While this
works, I think it could become confusing as more repositories become active.

The goal is not to change governance. These repositories would continue to
be managed by the Apache Fineract PMC. The goal is simply to make it
clearer for contributors where development is happening.
Previous discussion

I previously raised this topic on Matrix:

https://matrix.to/#/!izTOsJxSUbKhKUROGM:matrix.org/$6VnqpdYhkZDBwy9Y7gxslPvX6dI-f9wiSV6sJm9xySY?via=matrix.org

I also asked ASF Infrastructure whether creating another Jira project would
be possible. Their response indicated that this is technically feasible.

https://the-asf.slack.com/archives/CBX4TSBQ8/p1782838747421099
Possible approaches

Option 1: Create a separate Jira project

Create one (or more) Jira projects dedicated to these repositories.

There is already precedent for multiple Fineract-related Jira projects.
Besides FINERACT, there is also the historical FINCN project.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/BrowseProjects.jspa?selectedCategory=all&selectedProjectType=all&contains=fineract&sortColumn=name&sortOrder=ascending&s=view_projects

Option 2: Use GitHub Issues

Enable GitHub Issues for each repository using ASF's self-service .asf.yml
configuration.

https://infra.apache.org/request-bug-tracker.html


Option 3: Continue using FINERACT Jira

Continue using the existing FINERACT Jira project, but include the
repository name in every issue title.

For example:

[backoffice-ui] Add dashboard widgets

[consumer-facing] Registration flow

[loan-origination] Support document uploads

[business-intelligence] Add PostgreSQL connector
Recommendation

Personally, I prefer Option 2.

Since these repositories are separate development efforts, repository-level
GitHub Issues feel like the most natural solution. ASF already supports
this through self-service configuration, and it avoids creating additional
Jira projects while keeping issue tracking close to the code.

If one of these projects eventually grows to the point where a dedicated
Jira project makes sense, we could always revisit that decision later.

I'd be interested in hearing what the PMC and the wider community think
before moving forward.


Regards,
Aman

Reply via email to