So, how does this make more work for the AMQ community? Or the HornetQ community for that matter?
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Jon Anstey <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
