I'm not sure I follow you here, Jim. Both Andy and I have labored to clarify the history of the donation. See here <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693932.html> and here <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693997.html> . In my mind, the facts of the matter paint a different picture than the virus analogy you described.
Just for clarity's sake, here's a quick review with some additional details to flesh out the timeline a bit: 1) July 8, 2014, discussion is kicked off regarding code donation. See here <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-tp4682971.html> . One initial thought is that the donated code would take the mantle of ActiveMQ Apollo to be the next generation of ActiveMQ. 2) The donation is affirmed and welcomed. 3) The community consensus is to place the donated code into a git repository named "activemq-6" (or some equivalent). 4) The Git repo https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git is created and the donation is committed on October 31, 2014. 5) A JIRA project named "ACTIVEMQ6" is created. 6) Jenkins jobs "ActiveMQ6-Nightly-Regression-Test" and "ActiveMQ6-PR-Build" are created. 7) GitHub pull-requests are sent and JIRAs are opened providing nearly daily reminders on the dev-list that work on the "activemq-6" repository is happening. 8) March 10, first RC of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 is put up for vote. See here <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911.html> . RC is voted down mainly due to catX dependency issue. 9) March 12, second RC of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 is put up for vote. See here <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693119.html> . RC is voted down due to another catX dependency issue and a few other odds and ends. 10) March 17, third RC of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 is put up for a vote. See here <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693345.html> . RC naming is debated a bit. By March 23 consensus seems to be that releases should be suffixed with a "-M#" to let users know ActiveMQ 6 isn't yet a full replacement for ActiveMQ 5.x. 11) Later on March 23, for the first time to my knowledge broader concerns about the code donation becoming ActiveMQ 6 are raised. The discussion ensues across the whole community on different threads until now. >From steps 1-10 (covering over 8 calendar months) there is no clear objection that the donated code-base should not be the basis of the next generation of ActiveMQ. The matter is discussed in the open with lots of community members weighing in. From all I can see, the community consensus was clear (at that time) and the work was done in good faith. Obviously new opinions have come to light over the last week and so the RC vote was cancelled and the discussion is moving forward. Again, the community process is being honored. I don't see how the virus analogy applies or how this could be characterized as a hostile takeover. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4694075.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
