+1 to Option 2. I think enabling GitHub Issues for the project is a good approach. Since the repositories are developed independently from the main Apache Fineract codebase, having issue tracking close to the code makes it easier for contributors to report bugs, request features, and follow ongoing work.
It also keeps each repository self-contained while avoiding additional Jira projects unless they become necessary in the future. As the projects grow and attracts more contributors, GitHub Issues would provide a straightforward and familiar workflow. Regards, Sujan On Mon, 13 Jul, 2026, 18:07 Christofer Dutz, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > >
