If you read the initial thread for the code grant, the whole point was to NOT have 2 brokers & communities; it was to work together as one.
"There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two brokers today and it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities for us to join forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend our time duplicating efforts on both brokers." http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html IMO putting this new broker in the incubator is a bad idea and will just make more work for everyone... On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > I'm with Hadrian on this one. Incubation seems like the proper route > for this code, to me. HornetQ already has a well-established > community and apparently a kick-ass code base. One might wonder why > HornetQ wants to come here in the first place if everything is so > unicorns and rainbows. Anyway, if there are features of AMQ that > HornetQ (or whatever name it decides to take on here at the ASF) wants > from AMQ, it can easily integrate them as they see fit, without the > burden of trying to maintain backward compatibility and develop a > smooth migration path. > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> > wrote: > > I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view > > points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ > > project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution > > is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5. > > > > So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably > > a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the > > path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to > > do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x > > users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to > > become. > > > > We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to > > the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > >> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by > >> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be > >> heard.) > >> > >> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Chris, > >>> > >>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think > >>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been > >>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM > >>> perspective. > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but the > >> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the > project, > >> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version. > This > >> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the > project > >> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the > >> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious > accusation. > >> > >> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased > on > >> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate > affiliation - > >> an even more serious accusation. > >> > >> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being > imported > >> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue > of a > >> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC. > >> > >> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have > >> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel that > >> their voice is ignored on the PMC list. > >> > >> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been > >> suggested. > >> > >> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC. > >> > >> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it > the > >> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see > that > >> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code > be > >> taken to the incubator.) > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen > >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon > > > > > > > > -- > > Hiram Chirino > > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. > > hchir...@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com > > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino > -- Cheers, Jon --------------- Red Hat, Inc. Email: jans...@redhat.com Web: http://redhat.com Twitter: jon_anstey Blog: http://janstey.blogspot.com Author of Camel in Action: http://manning.com/ibsen
