Tracy Snell wrote > This really should’ve been the first thing the HornetQ camp did when the > push back happened. Insisting it should be 6.0 and all the surrounding > debate would’ve been greatly reduced had this been the first response.
As I read the thread for the original donation it seemed clear to me that the donation was accepted to be a replacement for ActiveMQ Apollo. In other words, the donation would be the basis for the next generation of ActiveMQ. In particular, it would consolidate many of the good things from ActiveMQ 5.x, Apollo, and HornetQ. When it came time to determine where exactly the donation would be placed the consensus was it should be placed in a repository called "activemq-6" (or some equivalent). This was suggested and confirmed by people who did not work on the donated code. I believe it was Richard Kettelerij that first suggested this repo name. To be clear, there was a suggestion that the donation might take the "Apollo" mantle since it was already deemed the next generation of ActiveMQ, but that idea was specifically shot down. "ActiveMQ 6" was (at least to me) the clear consensus. I understand that different people understood the donation differently. That's fine. We all have different perspectives. However, I think it's unfair to essentially say that "the HornetQ camp" insisted on it being called ActiveMQ 6.0. Once the donation was made and stored in https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git way back on October 31 a handful of us familiar with the code-base worked in good faith to do what we believed was the consensus (i.e. provide an initial release of ActiveMQ 6). When the first RC of "ActiveMQ 6" was cut the release naming was revisited (this thread being a prime example). At that point I think it would have improper for "the HornetQ camp" to make a blanket decision to rename it. Some in the community understood the donation as I did, and they support it. They want the donation to be ActiveMQ 6. It wouldn't make sense to ignore those community members. Obviously, some understood the donation differently and desire a different name. They shouldn't be ignored either. I feel the resulting discussion (across all the various threads) has been ultimately profitable and, in fact, was the only right way to handle the situation. As I understand it, that is (at least in part) the "Apache Way." As I see it, there's been no "railroading" as you suggested in another post. Has there been misunderstanding and perhaps miscommunication? I'll certainly grant that. Hopefully we're getting that sorted now. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693997.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
