If that is true, that's one more reason to grow the project in the
incubator. You are basically confirming yet again, that we have a RH
community taking over the ActiveMQ community.
That large community you mention should go through the incubation
process and getting used to the Apache Way in the incubator, not the
ActiveMQ pmc which is already heavily biased towards the same vendor. In
my strong opinion, echoed by others, this will help the activemq
community. And it's not only bringing committers in the PMC, it's also
bringing in many contributors (for a significant number of years) as
committers.
And by the way, initially I was quite neutral. It is this thread that
convinced me that the two communities should evolve separately.
Hadrian
On 03/27/2015 12:15 PM, Rob Davies wrote:
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
