Agree w/ Robbie. A JIRA Project for website changes is overkill. At this rate, the "How do I contribute to ActiveMQ?" README is going to need page breaks ;-)
Having spent considerable time working on the AMQ backlog, I think less things is better. Of the 9 current JIRA projects, over half (5) are unused or candidates for consolidation / deprecation. [Currently active] ActiveMQ ActiveMQ Artemis ActiveMQ C++ Client ActiveMQ .Net [Candidate for consolidate/deprecate] ActiveMQ CLI Tools - 1 ticket open ActiveMQ OpenWire - Literally has a ticket saying "can we close this down?" (OPENWIRE-46) [Deprecated] ActiveMQ Apollo ActiveRealTime Stomp Specification (zero open issues) I think we’d get more mileage out of having a staging site for website PRs. -Matt Pavlovich > On Sep 21, 2021, at 6:04 AM, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Having multiple JIRA projects is definitely preferable to me for > different bits that are released independently and dont live in the > same repo. Having them all mushed into one JIRA project just leads to > more awkward version naming, less obvious issue names/sequences, > harder queries, etc etc. (I've dealt with both cases even in the same > project, for me having the independent JIRA projects is definitely > nicer) > > I think in that regard if people believe we need JIRAs for the website > then having its own project would be the way to go. That said, I dont > personally think the site really needs JIRAs, for all it changes > mails+PRs seem sufficient to me, but if its going to then having its > own JIRA project for them makes sense to me. > > Consider Maven, where the plugins all have their own: > https://maven.apache.org/plugins/index.html > > On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 20:47, Justin Bertram <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Your basic point was raised, Etienne, and the discussion was pretty short. >> The Karaf project was cited as a potential model as they have a single Jira >> project with multiple components. However, given the fact that this is not >> the way that ActiveMQ is organized (i.e. each component has its own Jira >> project) we agreed that this didn't make sense. I don't think consolidating >> every Jira into one is on the table as this would be a pretty significant >> change for the project. Nobody suggested such a consolidation. >> >> There certainly are some Jira projects that I believe can be retired, but >> that's really separate from this discussion. >> >> >> Justin >> >> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 2:35 PM Hossack, Etienne >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Would you be able to present a summary of that discussion for the curious? >>> >>> I don’t feel strongly myself, but would be interested as to the >>> conversation given that many Apache projects have a single project, and >>> then can use something like “Component” to filter down the scope - it >>> definitely makes searching+filtering easy. >>> In particular, things like “STOMP Specification” and “CLI tools” don’t >>> seem to have many issues or much usage at all, so the alternative approach >>> would be to migrate all existing issues under a unified ActiveMQ umbrella >>> project (Jira provides this functionality with a couple of button clicks). >>> Wondering if that was discussed. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Étienne Hossack >>> Software Development Engineer, Amazon MQ >>> email: [email protected] <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 20, 2021, at 12:17 PM, Justin Bertram <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not >>> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know >>> the content is safe. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think it would be simpler and more consistent for project contributors if >>> we had a new Jira project specifically for the website. Currently issues >>> for the website are opened in the AMQ [1] Jira project that's dedicated to >>> the "Classic" broker. Each project component has its own Jira project [2] >>> so it seems reasonable that the website would as well. >>> >>> To be clear, ActiveMQ currently has 9 associated Jira projects [3]. For >>> good or for ill this is the way things are organized so I think it makes >>> sense to be consistent. >>> >>> I've already discussed this with the PMC and they were unanimously in favor >>> (after some discussion). However, this discussion was inadvertently private >>> so I wanted to open it up to the wider community. >>> >>> >>> Justin >>> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/AMQ >>> [2] http://activemq.apache.org/issues >>> [3] >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/BrowseProjects.jspa?selectedCategory=11160&selectedProjectType=all&sortColumn=name&sortOrder=ascending >>> >>> >>>
