There are many comments in this thread. Did you get them?
Hawt.io is not a library. Why should it be treated as a library? A
library would be wicket or angular, or jolokia. Hawt.io is an application.
Hadrian
On 01/27/2014 01:22 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Wow... I expect someone to chime in.
Does this mean everyone agrees that hawtio needs to be treated like
every other 3rd party library we redistribute?
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Hiram Chirino <[email protected]> wrote:
Starting up a new thread to avoid hijacking the original POLL thread.
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote:
Without the hawt.io community donating the relevant ActiveMQ portions to the
ASF we will not be able to get a consensus around proposal #3. Thus, that
needs to be taken off the table.
I think that's a faulty assumption that needs to get discussed and addressed.
Any hawtio UI that we package in the ActiveMQ will be reviewed by the
PMC. Like any 3rd party library that we ship, it has to have an
approved license and it's functionality has to be tested and verified
by the ActiveMQ project. If we the PMC does not like some detail of
hawtio we just need to open issues to address them and once it's to
the PMC's liking we can then package it. This is no different from
any other 3rd party lib we use so why are we treating it differently?
--
Hiram Chirino
