Hi all, coming in from the side-lines as I came across this discussion while reviewing the projects activity for Wednesday's board meeting.
If I understand it correctly, the project has added 4 new github repos in the Apache fineract space for these sub-projects. If that's the case: why not enable github issues for these and track the issues driectly inside the repos they apply to? Chris PS: If you want me to get a response, please add me in CC. On 2026/07/13 10:48:36 Aman Mittal wrote: > 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 >
