I see this issue mainly in terms of clarity and consistency for the project. We could certainly function adequately with PR and mailing list discussions. However, it's not clear to everyone (especially outside contributors) that this is what should happen, and it's not consistent with the rest of the project components.
History indicates that regardless of whether or not someone *should* create a Jira for the website, they will. This isn't surprising because it's natural to track such issues in Jira as that's exactly what it is for. This is especially true for folks who aren't inclined to send a PR, and we *want* to encourage such folks to report issues. There's been 9 [1] website issues opened in the AMQ Jira project since the beginning of 2021. In my opinion these issues belong in their own project. Given the renewed interest in the website recently I expect additional issues. My goal is simply to deal with such issues clearly and consistently with the norms already established for the project. In my view the deprecation/retirement of unused projects is a separate discussion. Even if they were all eliminated we'd still have a project per component which is the precedent I think is relevant here. Lastly, I have no qualms with a staging website for PRs, but I'm not clear how that specifically relates to this discussion. I don't see the two things as mutually exclusive. Justin [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20component%20%3D%20website%20AND%20created%20%3E%3D%202021-01-01%20AND%20created%20%3C%3D%202021-09-21%20ORDER%20BY%20created%20DESC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:29 AM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > 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 <jbert...@apache.org> > 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 > >> <ehoss...@amazon.com.invalid> 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: ehoss...@amazon.com <ehoss...@amazon.com> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sep 20, 2021, at 12:17 PM, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> > 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >
