Then we are back to having 2 brokers & communities. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:03 PM, James Carman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > -- 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
