Thanks Hiram,
That was exactly my recommendation a few days back, right? I had the
same view as Dan. Reduce the confusion, give the project time to mature,
give the new developers time to get a better understanding of the ASF,
once there is enough convergence we'll decide on something.
After this thread, it's painfully clear that there won't be any
convergence and it's best for both communities to evolve independently.
Sure, it is expected that some of the developers would move to the new
kid on the block project, that's fine, actually great for the new
project. The new project could reuse whatever they want from ActiveMQ,
grow a community. If at a later time there is a desire for convergence
it can still happen.
Continuing like this, I fear, will be a big distraction for both
projects, not good for any of the two communities. I hope some sort of
resolution will happen soon.
Cheers,
Hadrian
On 03/27/2015 01:28 PM, Hiram Chirino 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
