I’m fairly certain most of the community is concerned about the future of activemq. It doesn’t follow that HornetQ is the correct choice going forward (it may be but I’ve not seen any consensus on that issue). The current course of naming HornetQ activemq6 seemed like a declaration that the community had agreed on what the future was going to look like. In reality it looks like 2 communities under one name with one side advocating a join us or say good bye mentality. It is far from evident that not going the HornetQ route will leave ActiveMQ to sink. That’s a bit of an insult to the non HornetQ side of this community.
As a user I’m quite excited by the potential benefits of the HornetQ donation! I’ve been concerned about the future since Apollo didn’t take off. The benefits need to be explained, the path forward from 5 to a 6 that includes much/all of HornetQ needs to be agreed on and consensus built in the community. Otherwise it just looks like an attempt by HornetQ to take over the ActiveMQ name. > On Mar 25, 2015, at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <andy.tayl...@gmail.com > <mailto:andy.tayl...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink at > some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its > community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by having > a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind.
