I can't agree more with Dan. +1000 On Friday, March 27, 2015, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > After this thread, it's painfully clear that there won't be any > convergence and it's best for both communities to evolve independently. > > Huh? I don’t agree with that at all. It appears to me like it’s just > you that feels there won’t be any convergence. The Hornet folks are doing > a ton of work to get the “code” in a good state to support it, most of the > “AMQ5” devs are supportive of the efforts although a bit short on time to > help. From this thread, it looks like even the “users” are supportive of > getting the Hornet codebase into a state to be AMQ6. Lets get a > “milestone” release out (give it a code name if you really object to > 6.0-m1) to help foster some excitement around it, start getting > contributions and committers and eventually PMC members, and hopefully we > can even back port some of the ideas and such to 5.x. This is exactly the > kind of thing this community needs to help foster diversity and growth and > all that. Sitting around doing the "status quo” has obviously done very > little to change anything. > > Dan > > > > 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 <rbo...@rcbowen.com > <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;> - @rbowen > >>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon > >> > >> > >> > > -- > Daniel Kulp > dk...@apache.org <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > -- Hiram Chirino Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. hchir...@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
