I have really no idea what you are talking about. Could you provide concrete references and indicate in detail who is doing what?
Would you say this if HQ had been sponsored by some organization other than RedHat? I continue to see this as an amazing opportunity for AMQ to get a bunch of skilled enthusiastic new contributors together with some much needed code that people in the existing community haven't managed to write for the last 5 years. Given that the broker is at the center of everything, I can't imagine another integration strategy other than what has been going on. I'm getting really tired of the naysayers refusing to be explicit about exactly who has done what that they object to. If you hate red hat say so. If there's a community problem say exactly what you think it is and blame someone by name. As far as I'm concerned this is FUD without any attempt at documentation. thanks david jencks On Mar 28, 2015, at 9:28 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > What I don't like, from what I read, is almost virus-like > attempt to make HQ into AMQ. Virus works by invading a cell > and then using the cell itself to reproduce; the original cell > is gone, all that remains is the virus (this is incredibly > simplified, btw). It almost seems that the idea is, well, we > can't control the development of AMQ, so let's stack the > deck and make HQ the next version of AMQ and, shazam!, we now > control the direction of an Apache TLP. > > Someone on the thread called it a hostile takeover; I fail > to see how that interpretation is far from the mark.
