On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest, David, > can very well happen in the incubator. > I think it's important to read Clebert's initial email on the subject of donation: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html To me, this reads exactly to what occurred here - a new broker. John > > The way it's done right now is actually a very hostile takeover. > > Hadrian > > > > On 03/26/2015 01:12 PM, David Jencks wrote: > >> I'm baffled. I have (unfortunately, wish I had more time) very marginal >> involvement with activmq these days and it was obvious to me (even if >> wrong) that replacing the broker was the only plausible reason to bring in >> hornetQ code. So if that is the intention the obvious integration strategy >> to me is to start with the new broker code and add in all the non-broker >> bits from activemq 5. Isn't this what has been happening? What other >> possible integration strategy is there? I said it before but I'll say it >> again, I really don't understand why everyone here isn't saying, wow, we >> just got a new broker and some new committers who have the skills to write >> a broker, this is wonderful, how many years of work does that save us, >> let's all pitch in and make sure it has all the features of activemq 5 and >> is as compatible as we can make it. >> >> thanks >> david jencks >> >> On Mar 26, 2015, at 12:29 PM, artnaseef <a...@artnaseef.com> wrote: >> >> 5.x needs a new core. >>>> >>> >>> I think this point is really at the heart of the entire disagreement >>> here. >>> >>> The initial grant vote did not mention that HornetQ was going to be >>> taken as >>> a *replacement* for the entirety of ActiveMQ. As several folks have >>> mentioned here, we had the impression the code was going to be made >>> available for merging into the ActiveMQ code base. >>> >>> If the initial vote had been, "[VOTE] accept HornetQ as ActiveMQ 6 to >>> replace the existing code base", the results of the vote would have been >>> very different. It may still have passed, but there would have been this >>> same discussion back then before heading part-way down this path, and >>> there >>> would be no reason to discuss it now. >>> >>> Chris - I think you mentioned there was a vote to bring HornetQ folks >>> into >>> the AMQ PMC. I don't believe that happened (someone please correct me >>> if I >>> have it wrong). >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4. >>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation- >>> tp4693781p4693856.html >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >> >>
