Apologies if my message came across as negative criticism. It absolutely was not my intention.
I have no doubt that everybody's goal is to improve things. And the donation is a kindle for new awesomeness in this community. My proposal was to not jump straight on the 6.0.0 wagon. I must have skipped the message where you explained it, but m# releases are a perfectly valid alternative to alpha, betas and CRs. But m# releases are of little use without widespread announcement on dzone, theserverside, blogs, twitter, etc. to persuade/challenge people outside the AMQ community to take them for a spin and send their feedback. Is the community planning to overhaul the AMQ site too? The last thing we want is people landing all excited on a 2007-style page only to back away. Raúl. On 25 Mar 2015 23:05, "Clebert" <[email protected]> wrote: > Going to 6.0.0 was mistake that we later tried to fix with the m# proposal. > > We are just trying to improve things. > > > -- Clebert Suconic typing on the iPhone. > > > On Mar 25, 2015, at 17:40, Raul Kripalani <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > As an ActiveMQ user and consultant for 7+ years now, I had received the > > news of the HornetQ donation quite positively. > > > > AMQ had started to show troubling signs of inactivity. No new exciting > > features any longer. Practically no interest in adopting JMS 2.0. In my > > head, AMQ had gone into "maintenance mode" long ago - a fact that's > quite > > evident if you compare with the vitality of a (somewhat related) > community > > like Camel. > > > > I confess I have not followed the technical codebase merges, but it did > > seem a bit risky to go with v6 for this first release. On a side note, it > > doesn't even show seriousness that the v6 wiki page still puts Apollo > > forward as core [1]. > > > > To me, it feels like a hasty and improvised step. The internals have > > changed a great deal, if I'm not mistaken. > > > > Is the community confident enough to go shouting to the world "Hey! This > is > > our first MAJOR release after 7 years", and have it be a complete > success? > > > > Or is the community somewhat making a risky move? > > > > Frankly, given the magnitude of the changes, I would have expected a > > timeline of Alpha, Beta and CR releases. Even if this is not the custom > in > > this community. Two architectures are being merged, which makes it an > > exceptional event. And that deserves exceptional software and release > > engineering treatment, if you ask me. > > > > In other words, as an end user, consultant and spokesperson for many > > customers, I would expect a series of pre-GA releases with advertisement > > and announcements in blogs, online magazines, aggregators, etc. to gather > > technical feedback before pushing v6 out the door. > > > > Regards, > > Raúl. > > > > [1] http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html > >> On 25 Mar 2015 22:06, "Tracy Snell" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> 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 <[email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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. > >> > >> >
