Putting in new features and maintaining 2 separate brokers will be more work overall than just one. Surely you can agree with me on that? :-)
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Jamie G. <jamie.goody...@gmail.com> wrote: > Good question, how is that more work for everyone? More choices, sure. > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Really Jon? > > > > How will that "make more work for everyone"? Who is everyone. > > > > Hadrian > > > > > > On 03/27/2015 02:30 PM, Jon Anstey 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 < > 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
