[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       activemq-dev
Subject:    Re: [DISCUSS] New Jira project for website
From:       Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemmell () gmail ! com>
Date:       2021-09-22 8:34:27
Message-ID: CAFitrpS9kvRc0hDwLT2ASM9kfrfm4DqJ7VO0yQ8zk_+ekYjUiw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

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 <jbertram@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 <mattrpav@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.gemmell@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 <jbertram@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
> > > > <ehossack@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 <ehossack@amazon.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Sep 20, 2021, at 12:17 PM, Justin Bertram <jbertram@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
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > 
> > 


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]