This would all apply if there was an idea that there should end up being two products. My understanding when the vote happened was that
-- everyone agreed activemq needed a new broker -- our homegrown effort Apollo didn't work out (I still want to know why….) -- the hornetQ people had a modern broker that they wanted to bring in to activemq and help the community hook up all the non-broker bits to -- the result would be called activemq and there would be one community and one product I don't see how bringing the code into the incubator would be compatible with this agenda. As far as I can tell the new committers from the broker formerly known as hornetQ have been enthusiastically pursuing this agenda accompanied by what seems to me to be a lot of complaining from some pre-existing community members. Which parts of this did I get wrong? thanks david jencks On Mar 25, 2015, at 11:19 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org> wrote: > If it needs to happen, growing a community in an existing > Apache project that has been around for quite a while is > not something I would recommend for a variety of reasons. > > Note we recently went through a similar thought > on OODT/Wings with the prevailing sentiment from me and > a few others being suggesting Wings either goes through > Incubation at the ASF or remain at Github until there is > an actual connection (direct) between Wings and OODT such > that they are complimentary products and “bound” together > (aka you can’t release one without the other). > > Here are a few reasons: > > 1. Binding the products together on a committee requires > that the committee (PMC) have merit in each other’s products. > I don’t see that starting off at least. I see you have > VOTEd to add the HornetQ committers into the PMC. That’s > a good step but doesn’t seem (though the VOTE passed) to > have consensus based on feedback I’ve seen. > > 2. Having mutual products together also potentially binds > their release cycle - sure we can release as a committee > “independent products”, but there is then scrutiny and > sometimes “forced” instead of “natural” binding glue > developed between the software products if it wasn’t there > already. > > 3. IP clearance; brand; trademarks etc are things that > the PMC can do, but that things like the Incubator is set > up to help (or even direct to TLP options that are now > available [see Zest]). I see you guys are working through > the IP clearance. > > There are many more reasons that “umbrella” projects didn’t > work out at the ASF and are generally discouraged. I wouldn’t > recommend turning ActiveMQ into one. > > Instead, I would recommend the following: > > R1. HornetQ through the Incubator > R2. Mentors include the ActiveMQ community PMC members that > are ASF or IPMC members > R3. HornetQ consider a few ActiveMQ PMC/committers in its > initial PPMC makeup to develop synergy between the groups, > and to see if there are answers to 1-3 and more to be worked > out during Incubation. > > If the result of R1-R3 yields a desire to “graduate into > ActiveMQ” the answers to the questions 1-3 above will have > been worked out and it will be a much easier answer then. > > Cheers, > Chris > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: artnaseef <a...@artnaseef.com> > Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org> > Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 9:05 AM > To: <dev@activemq.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation > >> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of the >> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't really >> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will >> succeed as ActiveMQ 6. >> >> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure >> that >> direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad to be >> having this discussion. >> >> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ >> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does it >> mean >> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction. >> >> So, let's put this back into perspective. >> >> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the >> ActiveMQ >> community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider >> that >> Java is even older than ActiveMQ). >> >> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves >> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple industries, >> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places. >> >> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts: strength >> of >> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the technology; >> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a presumption >> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature. >> >> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any valid >> merits described. >> >> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to >> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem. >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-gene >> ration-tp4693781p4693805.html >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
