Yep, I dont see there being one as a great issue, I have no issue with lightly used JIRA projects.
On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 19:34, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: > > 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 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > >
