hi, I'm just amq-5.x user - neither involved in hornetq nor amq development.
However here are my 2cents (after following this thread): - i think it's definitely the right way to have the donation named amq-6 - I was excited when reading about this - as a user I'm glad to see amq moving forward (for me that is definitely the correct message)... - further - to me it seems that there is not really an issue with "two communities" or a "community problem", but rather individual amp-pmcs/-devs that stand in their own ways... - i cannot understand pmc/committers to just make "noise" in threads like this but now involving in current development (as this was obviously "decided" already)... as a community member, I'd be happy to see you guys all pull together - in fact i'm surprised that (imho) something really valueable, like this donation, can result in discussion like that... but as i said, i don't have too much insight (in internals) :) ty On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:24 PM, David Jencks < [email protected]> wrote: > I'm really glad you guys haven't packed up and gone home :-) > > All the suggestions that result in the new broker staying within activemq > are fine with me. In order to not predict the eventual version of the new > broker, how about something like activemq-NB-1.0-M1 (new broker)? Then > if/when it turns into trunk we can turn it into activemq-6.0.0 or > activemq-10.0.0 or…. as appropriate. > > thanks > david jencks > > On Mar 30, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Martyn Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > > > As the release manager of the initial release of ActiveMQ-6 I have kept > up with this thread in hope that consensus would eventually be reached. > Myself and the other folks actively contributing to ActiveMQ-6 would then > be able to make the required changes and move forward. I'd really rather > not kick up any more turf on this matter, but I'll just say that the folks > working on HornetQ sent the original code grant email in good faith, we > thought that by coming together we could achieve much more, we'd bring > together not only two great pieces of software but also knowledge, > experience and also, importantly, time and effort. > > > > In the original donation thread it was decided that ActiveMQ-6 would be > the name for the project repository housing the code donation. This was not > forced nor was it even suggested by the HornetQ developers, we just > accepted the state of play and started work on getting things in place. > Given the ActiveMQ-6 name for the repo myself and others (perhaps > incorrectly) assumed that ActiveMQ 6.0.0 followed. There is nothing more to > the initial release proposal than that, this is just how we understood what > had been agreed. There is no hostile take over attempt by any ActiveMQ-6 > developers or any corporate bullish strategy that others have implied on > this thread. > > > > I'd like to also say that myself and the other contributors to the > ActiveMQ-6 project were very excited about the response to initial code > grant. We took the bull by the horns and really put blood, sweat and tears > into getting existing code base in shape. The last 5 months have been > extremely hard work and we have achieved a great deal, I am extremely > excited to get an inital release out in the open for people to evaluate and > express their thoughts and views of the project. I'd love to make progress > and finish what we had started in getting an initial release of the code > base out in the open. It appears that there are others also excited about > trying it out. So, let's pull together and get this thing out there. > > > > From what I have read thus far, that there are individuals in the > community that that have very different view points, and opinions are not > likely to be swayed completely to one side or the other. This is completely > understandable and I can empathise. > > > > Personally, I have no affiliation to ActiveMQ 6.0.0 other than this is > what I had understood had been agreed. To me, it also follows (and I > realise that other have objected to this) that this would mean ActiveMQ-6 > would become the next generation of the ActiveMQ broker (Given that we are > on the 5.x series now). There was obviously confusion, perhaps > misunderstanding here. > > > > > > I wonder, where do we go from here? There have been a couple of > suggestions thus far that attempt to address some of the issues that have > arisen in the thread: > > > > 1. Use a different project name akin to Apollo. This addresses some of > the concerns that ActiveMQ-6 should not be positioned as the next > generation of the existing broker. But also implies that the projects are > still distinct, separate things, which perhaps, detracts from the original > goal of the code donation email, which was an offer to join forces to > create a unified, single great broker. In addition, from what I have read > from Chris Mattmann, it appears that ASF are not keen on creating sub > projects, which may end up rendering option 1. -> 3. > > > > 2. Put some clear daylight between the existing ActiveMQ broker and the > version of the next initial release of the ActiveMQ-6 code base, whilst > using milestone releases e.g. 10.0.0-M1. This approach addresses some of > the concerns that ActiveMQ could never do another major release but work > could continue on both code bases. However, this still implies that the > ActiveMQ-6 core, would replace the existing core at some undecided point in > the future. > > > > 3. Move the ActiveMQ-6 into incubator as a separate project. This does > address the concerns of those that are against using the ActiveMQ-6 code > base as the core. But seems to completely detract from the original goal > of joining forces and creating a "one broker to rule them all" taking the > best parts of ActiveMQ-6 (the core) and adding all the cool features from > the existing ActiveMQ code base. > > > > Perhaps there are other suggestion that I have missed. > > > > To me, approaches 1. and 3. seem like they will inevitably result in > ActiveMQ-6 becoming a separate, distinct project. Which goes against what > we were really trying to achieve here, which was to unite and combine > forces, this was the basic intent of the original code grant email. It > would, in my opinion be a tragedy, if after the initial prospect of > collaboration, months of hard work and the prospect of bringing the best > pieces of both worlds, to create something even better, the projects parted > and went their separate ways... > > > > In an attempt to pull things together and make progress. How would > people feel if I proposed a release candidate based on suggestion 2. i.e. > ActiveMQ 10.0.0-M1. We could use this "10 series" to move forward with > combining the ActiveMQ existing features with the fast ActiveMQ-6 core and > address migration. We could then decide as a community if and when a > 10.0.0 release is in a suitable state to be release as the next generation? > > > > If people are not on board with this, what would you suggest? How can > we move forward? > > > > Regards > > Martyn > > > > On 30/03/15 05:23, David Jencks wrote: > >> Hi Art, > >> > >> Thanks for trying to bring me back to earth :-) > >> > >> I think I understand a bit more of what you are concerned about, and > your concerns are definitely worth discussing, although I think in some of > your earlier posts we disagree a lot on what is going on. > >> > >> - name: I don't think anyone cares any more that formerly-hornetQ be > called activemq-6 right now. I hope this would alleviate your concern that > it will necessarily be the next activemq even if it doesn't work :-) > >> > >> - need for new broker: Other people have explained way better than I > can why a new broker might greatly broaden where activemq could be used. I > don't want to see activemq disadvantaged on say relatively slow processors > with a lot of cores. > >> > >> - concern about backwards compatibility and getting into a no-migration > bind. This is a big problem, and a big danger, and Raj seems to be saying > it could take years to make it completely backwards compatible (hopefully > not replicating bugs :-) However, if I understood his post correctly, > activemq has already had 4 broker replacements and it's still going > strong. So I don't see this as an insuperable obstacle. > >> > >> You've also said some things that don't match up with what it looks to > me like is going on. I'm pretty sure you are more involved than I, so you > might have more evidence, but I haven't seen it. > >> > >> - hornetQ is replacing activemq, rather than merging code into the > existing activemq code base. I've tried to address this repeatedly. The > only way I can imagine the integration working, since everything is > attached to the broker, is to start with the new broker and add everything > that isn't the broker to it, changing both as needed so it works. As far > as I can tell this is exactly what is happening. What other plausible > merge/integration strategy can you imagine? At the beginning of this > process the new code repository is going to look like former-hornetq with > the name changed. As bits get added it's going to look more and more like > activemq 5 does now. > >> > >> - hornetQ is going to continue to exist as a separate messaging > solution and entity. My understanding has always been 100% that the > hornetQ intent is to merge the code bases, drop the hornetQ name, and not > have any separate hornetQ code base, community, project, product….. > >> > >> Finally, I don't see what the board can offer for these questions, I > think the community has to decide what it wants to do. There' might well > be community problems and I'd expect the board to address those. Unless > I'm wrong about the last point, hornetQ continuing as a separate project, I > don't see any of these as community problems but rather technical decisions > about the project direction. > >> > >> I sure hope we can continue with more communication and less noise :-) > And I hope I haven't missed any concerns you regard as important. > >> > >> thanks > >> david jencks > >> > >> On Mar 28, 2015, at 2:24 PM, artnaseef <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> David - please go back and read my posts (user name artnaseef, full > name > >>> Arthur Naseef). I have repeated myself multiple times with concerns. > And > >>> there has not been constructive response to my concerns, nor to > questions I > >>> posed in an attempt to get clarity on the position that ActiveMQ needs > a new > >>> broker. > >>> > >>> It is disappointing because I know there is valid discussion there. > >>> > >>> I agree this thread contains much passion and input that is > unactionable > >>> (i.e. pure criticism), and that sucks because it will never serve to > move > >>> use forward, reach conclusion, nor build consensus. At the same time, > it's > >>> understandable and I recognize that I have inserted some myself. So > let me > >>> be the first to apologize. I'm sorry for statements that I've made > which > >>> have not been constructive. > >>> > >>> Getting back to the actionable concerns raised and finding a way to > address > >>> them going forward would be greatly appreciated. > >>> > >>> If you want me to rehash my concerns, then I'll do so, but I would > prefer to > >>> avoid repeating myself multiple times. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4694024.html > >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > >
