How does it make more work for "everyone"?
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Jon Anstey <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]> 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 - [email protected] - @rbowen >> >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Hiram Chirino >> > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. >> > [email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com >> > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > Jon > --------------- > Red Hat, Inc. > Email: [email protected] > Web: http://redhat.com > Twitter: jon_anstey > Blog: http://janstey.blogspot.com > Author of Camel in Action: http://manning.com/ibsen
