Both Rob and Hadrian seem to agree that a key stumbling block is the "need to grow a diverse community first". Then it could be called ActiveMQ 6. I don't buy that.
There are two bits, diverse and community. The qualifier diverse is a problem with the ActiveMQ community today. It has been a long standing issue and it is related to the nature of the problem space and to industry consolidation. A code donation cannot be expected to rectify that on its own. The only way to rectify this issue is growth. On community, the ActiveMQ PMC has accepted the donation and verified all of the required legal bits. It has been accepted on behalf of the activemq community. So the community exists and has been strengthened by additional committers following the donation. Essentially HornetQ no longer exists, there have been more than 400 commits to the activemq6 code base at Apache prior to the first release attempt. Morphing a container from apollo, authentication/authorisation support and auto destination creation from 5.x and bug fixes etc. This is happening *in* the ActiveMQ community. Rallying around activemq 6 milestones is an opportunity to grow the community and reach a new audience. Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ rudderless. Gary. On 25 March 2015 at 08:47, Rob Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com> wrote: > (was: HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation) > > Thanks Lionel - I agree. > > The [VOTE] thread was getting a little verbose, and a little heated. There > were a lot of opinions, and a lot of assumptions and its likely there was > some miscommunication when HornetQ was donated to the ActiveMQ community. > On the plus side, its great that there are so many passionate members of > the community. > > It seems there is no consensus from the ActiveMQ community that HornetQ > should be the next generation of ActiveMQ - yet - and hence should be a > sub-project with its own name. > Personally, I believe there are a lot of advantages of starting > development of ActiveMQ 6 around a HornetQ core - but as Hadrian as > already pointed out - it does need to validate itself by growing its own > diverse community first. I hope the ActiveMQ community as a whole gets > involved in the code donated from HornetQ and pushes it the right way. > > Rob > > Lionel Cons <lionel.c...@cern.ch> > 25 March 2015 06:58 > (for the sake of clarity, I think that this important subject deserves more > than the [VOTE] thread currently used, hence this new thread...) > > Apollo (tagline = "ActiveMQ's next generation of messaging") started in > 2010 > as an ActiveMQ sub-project in the hope of becoming ActiveMQ 6. At that > time, > the latest ActiveMQ was 5.4. > > Almost 5 years later, ActiveMQ is now 5.11 and some of the Apollo > developments > (like LevelDB or MQTT) have been merged into ActiveMQ 5.x. FWIW, Apollo is > still officially advertised as "the core of the 6.0 broker" in > http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html. > > In parallel, last year, the HornetQ codebase has been donated to ActiveMQ. > The > ActiveMQ 6 RC assembled so far is HornetQ with Apollo's tagline, > "ActiveMQ's > next generation of messaging", hence the confusion. > > For me, the fundamental question to answer is: has it been _decided_ that > HornetQ will be the core of the next generation of ActiveMQ? > > If the answer is yes then HornetQ can be called ActiveMQ 6.0 and we should > get > a stable, feature complete ActiveMQ 5.x replacement a few minor versions > later > (who trusts a .0 version anyway?). > > If the answer is no (or not yet) then HornetQ should probably appear as an > ActiveMQ sub-project, just like Apollo (still) is. HornetQ can evolve there > and come closer to ActiveMQ "the next generation". Then, the ActiveMQ > project > should decide what will be ActiveMQ 6. > > Cheers, > > Lionel Cons > >