So why didn't you guys work on this console "in-house"? On Wednesday, January 22, 2014, Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net> wrote:
> In my opinion, this "control issue" is totally overblown. First of all, > we're not some newcomers trying to put a malware into the project. We're > people that are developing this project for the last 5-7 years and are > trying to position it better for the future, by replacing its most obsolete > component. > > But most importantly, you put it as if Apache releases are totally > uncontrollable and anybody can sneak into it anything they want. But you > know well that's not the case, as we use proper releases of other projects > and all "skinning" is done here. Additionally, every release is voted. So > there's no chance of any misuse at the release time and once it's released > it can't be changed. What happens when a project we use loses its track? We > deal with that at that point (find a replacement, fork and continue > developing, etc.) and it's the same for Spring, Jetty, HawtIO or any other > part. So the "risk of losing control" is not valid neither from technical > nor project image standpoint. > > Regards > -- > Dejan Bosanac > ---------------------- > Red Hat, Inc. > FuseSource is now part of Red Hat > dbosa...@redhat.com <javascript:;> > Twitter: @dejanb > Blog: http://sensatic.net > ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/ > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > inline > > > > On 21 January 2014 17:36, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 21, 2014, at 12:07 PM, Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On 21 January 2014 16:30, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> 2) All the ActiveMQ related code needs to be moved into the ActiveMQ > > project. If someone is using ActiveMQ and wants to contribute changes > to > > how the console looks or displays items or such, they should be making > > contributions to ActiveMQ, not some external community (open source, > free, > > or otherwise). The hawt.io “framework” of libraries and such can > remain > > outside, but the ActiveMQ specific portions needs to be part of this > > community. If it’s going to be the visible frontend of this project, we > > need to make sure it drives the developer willing to contribute > > enhancements into ActiveMQ. > > >>> > > >> This is putting the cart before the horse! > > >> If we need some changes and if we can't make contributions to hawtio > > >> (patches, issues etc) we can deal with that by building our own plugin > > >> or throwing it out or whatever. But why do that now? > > > > > > You are basically asking THIS developer community to completely give up > > control over how ActiveMQ is presented to the users to a different > > community. I personally cannot think of anything much worse for this > > community than that. That seems like a horrible idea from an Apache > > community standpoint. > > > > > That is not what I am asking. > > How can choosing to adopt a better solution to an open problem be > > giving up control? We can always change our minds and throw it out if > > it does not serve our needs. The PMC will always be in control of what > > is released. > > > > > > > The goals of the Apache communities needs to be to make sure developers > > are driven into the Apache communities, not another community. > > Any goal that hopes to drive developers is a non starter. Developers > > choose, they are not driven. I am suggesting we make a sensible choice > > that helps our community by giving it a better web ui. hawtio wants to > > have the best activemq web console, we want to ship the best activemq > > console. The stars are aligned. If the alignment falters we address > > that. > > > > > > > >> We don't have to own everything that makes activemq better and that > > >> makes our users experience better, we just have to ensure that it is > > >> better. > > > > > > Making the user experience better is certainly an important aspect of > > the Apache communities, but the primary focus should be on making sure > the > > developer community is healthy and we aren’t driving potential developers > > elsewhere. That NEEDS to be the most important thing at this point, > > especially with the current active makeup of this community. > > > > > > In particular, since Apache is a 503b charitable non-profit foundation, > > we cannot be used to promote other communities, particularly those > “owned” > > by a for-profit entity. (open source or otherwise, that’s somewhat > > irrelevant) > > > > > > Anyway, as far as *I’m* concerned (but I’m not a member of this PMC, > > just an interested party), if the hawt.io community is unwilling or > > unable to support the ActiveMQ community to allow ActiveMQ to maintain > > control over it’s user experience, then there is no-point engaging with > > them. It is a waste of time. > > > > > > That said, if hawt.io community want to create a full distribution of > > ActiveMQ + hawt.io to make life easier for users, they certainly are > > welcome to do so as long as it’s not branded ActiveMQ. (and again, not > > something to be promoted here) > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > >> If the hawt.io
