This incubator line is a red herring. HornetQ wanted to consolidate communities together - they didn't need more committers - their community ( in the Apache sense of the word) was already bigger than ActiveMQ. What I don't understand is that you actually agreed to this - and backed a proposal made by someone not from Red Hat to put into a repo called ActiveMQ 6 - and now you start calling foul? go back and read the history.
> On 27 Mar 2015, at 15:28, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Everything you mentioned, all the code changes e.g. "merge good stuff from > 5.x into the code donation", can very well be done in the incubator. The > discussion I am trying to have is about the *community*, core value of the > "Apache Way". The sooner that is understood the better. > > Hadrian > >> On 03/27/2015 10:52 AM, Andy Taylor wrote: >> There has been a lot said about the intent of the HornetQ donation so >> let me just clear up a few things. >> >> Regarding the naming, the idea to use ActiveMQ6 for the repo name came >> from this discussion thread: >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html. >> The original idea was to reuse the Apollo name but then consensus >> emerged around activemq-6. The idea to use version 6.0.0 followed from >> the repo name. Maybe 10.0.0-M1 would have been a better choice to signal >> a large change and leave room for 5.x to grow. >> >> Since agreement was made to accept the donation [1] [2], lots of work >> has been done to get ready for an initial release, this involved >> rebranding, removing all CatX dependencies and a general clean up. >> >> The intent is to merge the good stuff of 5.x with the code donation and >> support migration. There has been some good progress here. We have >> preliminary Openwire support for backward compatibility with 5.x clients >> and work has started to address some of the feature gaps, e.g., adding >> auto creation of destinations and reusing the ActiveMQ Filter code. >> There’s obviously more work to do but this is just the initial release >> that completes the IP clearance process. Going forward, I’d like to see >> us collectively develop a feature backlog for subsequent milestone >> releases. At some point in the future, the community might decide that >> the new core becomes the primary deliverable from the project but that >> should happen organically with no rush. >> >> [1] >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Accept-hornetq-code-grant-and-active-committers-td4685833.html >> [2] >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/RESULT-VOTE-Accept-hornetq-code-grant-and-active-committers-td4686006.html >>
