Hello @dev- I argue that we are effectively already using GitHub for issues, JIRA is just getting a back-port sync of the discussion. The reality is that code-change discussions are occurring on the PRs, not in JIRA or mailing lists-- and that makes sense. It is far easier to have a discussion while referencing the line of code and providing a checklist of issues to resolve to the committer. The GitHub-to-JIRA synchronization is noisy and generates a lot of text in the JIRA comments that aren't really legible.
The JIRA issue-to-PR process is cumbersome, there's now even a "NO-JIRA" process to work around that reality -- and that has led to back-and-forth on certain issues that start NO-JIRA, and then need to have a JIRA created and vice-versa. Issues: - Customizable templates that can enforce policy to reduce back-and-forth with in-experienced issue submitters. Release notes: - Simple generation, template-izable and ability to customize at release time (ie to remove any NO-JIRA type things that don't need to be in release notes) In terms of migration complexity, I think the numbers make the migration effort look larger than the actual reality on the ground. We are really talking about 2 active repos (activemq & artemis) and 1 periodically updated repo (nms). Migration can be over time and on a project-by-project or repo-by-repo basis. The majority of total repo count are NMS related, and there is an argument that those should be combined to a single repo for easier release. Using the top-level NMS project for issues and labels for sub-projects would be suitable for a low-traffic module such as that. The activemq-cli-tools can move/migrate into the main ActiveMQ repo, its a simple tool and it makes sense to include that function in the distribution. We've transitioned to a new era in software development, and we should move to the tools that are more readily used by dev-users in this era. That is currently GitHub. GitHub is a better toolkit for streamlining the management of the project and developing community engagement. Thank you for attending my TED talk, Matt Pavlovich > On Apr 2, 2024, at 2:52 PM, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: > > There's been a few threads about this general subject, but most have > concentrated on Classic in particular. I think it's worth discussing > migration of ActiveMQ as a whole and diving a bit deeper into the details > of why a migration makes (or doesn't make) sense and what the challenges > may be. > > To this end I've put together this document [1]. I hope it will be of > service to the community as we consider this option. > > > Justin > > [1] > https://github.com/jbertram/activemq-website/wiki/Apache-ActiveMQ-GitHub-Issues-Migration-Review
