You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> on 2021/09/20 19:17:27 UTC
[DISCUSS] New Jira project for website
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
Re: [DISCUSS] New Jira project for website
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
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 <jb...@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 <ma...@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 <ro...@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 <jb...@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
> > >> <eh...@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: ehossack@amazon.com <eh...@amazon.com>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sep 20, 2021, at 12:17 PM, Justin Bertram <jb...@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
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
> >
Re: [DISCUSS] New Jira project for website
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
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 <ma...@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 <ro...@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 <jb...@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
> >> <eh...@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: ehossack@amazon.com <eh...@amazon.com>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sep 20, 2021, at 12:17 PM, Justin Bertram <jb...@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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] New Jira project for website
Posted by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
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 <ro...@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 <jb...@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
>> <eh...@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: ehossack@amazon.com <eh...@amazon.com>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 20, 2021, at 12:17 PM, Justin Bertram <jb...@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
>>>
>>>
>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] New Jira project for website
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
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 <jb...@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
> <eh...@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: ehossack@amazon.com <eh...@amazon.com>
> >
> >
> > On Sep 20, 2021, at 12:17 PM, Justin Bertram <jb...@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
> >
> >
> >
Re: [DISCUSS] New Jira project for website
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
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
<eh...@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: ehossack@amazon.com <eh...@amazon.com>
>
>
> On Sep 20, 2021, at 12:17 PM, Justin Bertram <jb...@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
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] New Jira project for website
Posted by "Hossack, Etienne" <eh...@amazon.com.INVALID>.
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: ehossack@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
[cid:0CFB4B72-BC66-42A8-953C-779D7FAE3DC0@amazon.com]
On Sep 20, 2021, at 12:17 PM, Justin Bertram <jb...@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