It makes no sense to have 1/3 of people and tickets doing it one way and 2/3 another.
One benefit of labels is, that you can combine e.g. 3.0 and 4.0 at the same time, while a milestone is unique, but it can also have a date which labels can't.
So it depends on how you want to use and analyze what issues exist and which resources are available to help.
Could we purge either of them, I don't care which, just be consistent.
The more Github aware one is Milestone, but if everyone prefers label or there was any Jakarta EE wide preference to use labels over milestones, then so be it.
Werner
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:20 PM Richard Monson-Haefel <rmonson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That makes sense. I'm fine with it as it is. Perhaps someone else can label it as a use-case. That said, I wouldn't mind being a committer on the project.
Richard, I don't see your name in the list of committers for the
Jakarta Messaging project. It is possible you need to be a
committer to make these changes. (If I log out of GitHub, I see
that I cannot edit the issue.) If you are interested, I'm quite
sure your nomination to this group would be welcomed.
Otherwise, (apparently) any committer can update the issue. I
added the use case label.
-- Ed
On 9/30/2019 6:24 PM, Richard
Monson-Haefel wrote:
I may have signed in with the wrong credentials.
I’ll fix it tomorrow.
I submitted a user-case and plan to
provide a proposal but I could not find a
way to label the use-case I just submitted
(#250) as a use-case. How is that done?
Most of those are in TODO state currently.
My primary goal was to enable everyone to
submit ideas now.
As this is our first time and we're
trailblazing (aka. no one knows what the
process is) I put quite a lot of time into
how we could organize ourselves.
Likely what we do with Messaging 3.0 will
influence us for years to come.
# Road Map issue
I've created a dedicated Github issue for
the roadmap, plainly titled "Jakarta
Messaging 3.0". In my head this is the
replacement for filing a JSR. The goal is
to give the outside world a permalink to see
at the high-level what we're up to.
People can easily comment on it. We can
link issues to it. When we put our spec up
for Community Review or Final Release, we
can include a link to this issue. There is
a `roadmap` label which would be just for
this one issue, not for all issues in the
roadmap.
If other specification projects did the same
(one roadmap issue per spec), someone could
easily see a high-level view of all of
Jakarta EE.next, which is going to be very
important over the next year as people do
presentations and articles.
The Road Map issue intentionally does not
link to any specific proposals. It's too
early to say any particular proposal is "the
one." Instead it links to problems we want
to solve. Each of these is labeled with
`use case` and the idea is that they are a
clear description of the problem and
motivation.
A `use case` intentionally does not detail a
specific solution. The goal is to enable
detailed and competing proposals, all of
which are filed separately and linked to the
`use case`. If we ended up with a dozen
proposals for a use case, that'd be amazing.
We can keep the `use case` issue updated to
reflect our current thinking. Over time we
may decide to highlight a few of the best
proposals. Eventually we'd need to pick one
or eliminate the `use case` from the
roadmap.
This is where you throw all the details
about your preferred way to solve a
problem. Ideally, there are many proposed
solutions. These can start out very rough,
but obviously need to evolve to be
implementable.