Devs,
Recently we had a new repo created for the new Artemis console I am working
on. At the time the console was going to be a plugin similar to what we
have, however after some design changes it is not more of an extension of
hawtIO and not shipped as a plugin. The benefit here is that we now on
Is there anything stopping us from enabling Github Discussions for now? It
seems like we had consensus on that part.
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 2:15 PM Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> Robbie/JB-
>
> Good calls outs, thanks! I did not mean to skew into contribution guide as
> far as I did. I will take a pas
I can create a new repo, but I can't delete the old one myself. I'll need
to get infra to do that.
Justin
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 6:50 AM Andy Taylor wrote:
> Devs,
>
> Recently we had a new repo created for the new Artemis console I am working
> on. At the time the console was going to be a p
Good question, Chris. I don't believe so and I agree allowing discussions
in PRs is critical.
Bruce
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 7:40 AM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there anything stopping us from enabling Github Discussions for now? It
> seems like we had conse
Renaming it seems reasonable if it is not actually going to be just a
plugin anymore.
If everyone agrees, creating a new repo and deleting the old one might
be the quicker approach, since we can do the former ourselves whilst
the rest needs Infra to handle. They might also be more willing to
remov
makes sense to me, lets give it a while for people to comemnt
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 at 15:30, Robbie Gemmell
wrote:
> Renaming it seems reasonable if it is not actually going to be just a
> plugin anymore.
>
> If everyone agrees, creating a new repo and deleting the old one might
> be the quicker
We need a clear agreement specifically about enabling Discussions and
on which repositories, since Infra will have to enable it for us on
them, Discussions is not self-service.
Might be simplest to just start a thread, and then when its clear,
either start a vote or do a lazy consensus statement t
This isnt about discussions in PRs, it is about enabling the
Discussions tab in a github repository. Basically a threaded forum
style view where people can...discuss :)
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 at 15:27, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
> Good question, Chris. I don't believe so and I agree allowing discussions
Enabling GitHub Discussions is not something we've really discussed
thoroughly. I mentioned it in my review only briefly as a "future
consideration." I don't think we've got consensus yet.
Justin
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 8:47 AM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is
I think overall it would be a positive thing, it gives a place for people
to ask questions without having to raise a Jira.
I guess the one downside is it would be something else to monitor...there's
already Jira, Slack, and the mailing lists.
I think one thing that would be helpful for monitoring
We should start a new thread about Discussions so it can be clearly
and specifically discussed..i.e not on this thread or the other
previous thread both originally about Issues.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 at 16:32, Christopher Shannon
wrote:
>
> I think overall it would be a positive thing, it gives a p
I definitely agree with starting a new [DISCUSS] thread about GitHub
Discussions.
Justin
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:11 AM Robbie Gemmell
wrote:
> We should start a new thread about Discussions so it can be clearly
> and specifically discussed..i.e not on this thread or the other
> previous thr
Can someone please remove me from this group
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 at 7:57 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
> Good question, Chris. I don't believe so and I agree allowing discussions
> in PRs is critical.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 7:40 AM Christopher Shannon <
> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com
I removed you from the list, Arun.
Justin
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:45 AM arun rapaka wrote:
> Can someone please remove me from this group
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 at 7:57 PM, Bruce Snyder
> wrote:
>
> > Good question, Chris. I don't believe so and I agree allowing discussions
> > in PRs is
During the process of researching the proposed move to GitHub Issues I
reviewed all ActiveMQ Git repos [1]. I noticed a handful that haven't been
updated in a long time and appear to be defunct:
- activemq-stomp - https://github.com/apache/activemq-stomp
- activemq-activeio - https://github.com/
I don't think it's a good idea to delete anything unless it's just an empty
repo so we can preserve the history.
I think the standard practice is to instead ask infra to archive the repos
and they become read only. We did that with Apollo:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-apollo
On Thu, Apr 1
Hi Justin-
What about moving several to archived/read-only vs delete? Or at least
archive/read-only for a period of time before deleting them altogether?
Good to archive/read-only:
- [x] activemq-stomp (looks like stomp website)
- [x] activemq-web (looks like deprecated repo activemq-website is
Agreed. Good call on the archiving.
Justin
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 3:58 PM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think it's a good idea to delete anything unless it's just an empty
> repo so we can preserve the history.
>
> I think the standard practice is to i
I agree 100% with the following:
Good to archive/read-only:
- activemq-activeio
- activemq-nms-ems
- activemq-nms-xms
- activemq-nms-zmq
- activemq-nms-msmq
Should stay open for now:
- activemq-protobuf
I still think these are worth deleting:
- activemq-stomp
- activemq-w
19 matches
Mail list logo
