See Guillaume, it is precisely this attitude that created the problem in
the first place.
One of the first things developers learn in the incubator is that it's
not their project any longer, it's an ASF project. And the ASF has some
very clear values, backed by years of experience. One of them is diversity.
You are saying that those who made the initial contribution, wrote 90%
of the code, they know better and should be trusted whenever they feel
like it to replace the project with another one, because, well, the
current one "will soon be abandoned for lack of committers". Never mind
that the current PMC never bothered to bring in committers with
interests different than theirs and is constantly trying to control vs
grow the community. What you are saying is that you already decided to
move to the new one, hornetq, you just want to keep the brand.
I am looking forward to having a chat at apachecon next week with the
HornetQ folks who will show up (if they want to) and expose a side of
the ASF they were not introduced to at the Fuse water cooler. (There are
awesome ASFers at RH, I bet they were not consulted.) Hopefully they
will understand why my proposal is meant to make them successful, in the
same way that my initial proposal for the project rename was intended to
give the hornetq community time to mature. I hope to have a (positive)
influence on their understanding of the situation.
Best,
Hadrian
On 04/08/2015 06:44 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
2015-04-08 22:52 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org>:
This isn’t a flame war, and you continue to state things about
what’s going to be maintained and what’s not, and it’s not backed
by fact. Some comments below:
[...]
[..]
In this very case, I think this is a technical decision, and my trust
clearly goes to the ones that know and wrote 90% of the code, and when
they all seem to say the "hornetq" broker should replace the activemq 5
one, I don't see why I should give it
any more second thoughts.
I can try to be gentle and accept other solutions, such as a renaming and
having 2 brokers. But I do very well know that one will be soon
abandoned for a lack of committers working on the core broker.
Maintaining the activemq 5 broker is fine, but I
certainly fail to see how there will be an activemq 6 broker based on
activemq 5 with major changes, if none of the committers on the broker
are willing to work on it.
The talk about no one wanting to develop ActiveMQ 5 isn’t backed
by the data. It doesn’t support that.
From reporter.apache.org:
The project is frequently releasing code:
from: http://www.apache.org/dist/activemq/
(5.11.0 was released in Feb 2015)
(5.10.2 was released in Feb 2015)
from: http://archive.apache.org/dist/activemq/
(5.10.1 was released in Jan 2015)
(5.10.0 was released in Jane 2014)
(4.9.1 was released in April 2014)
256 JIRA tickets created and 160 closed in last 3 months.
Lies, damned lies and statistics... ;-)
Did I ever say that there was no development at all in the ActiveMQ project
?
That's not what I said. I talked about evolving the activemq 5 *core broker*
code into a next generation broker for activemq 6, not about maintaining
the activemq 5 broker and also not about adding additional protocols,
persistence mechanism, etc...and certainly not about fixing bugs.
When I write "*core broker*" explicitly, it rules out any non core
components, which are more easily ported to a new broker implementation
(see earlier points made by David Jencks).
So we're talking about the next major version of the *core broker*. The
attempt to write such a new broker was Apollo and it started in February
2009. This kinda implies the *core broker* is mostly in maintenance mode
since a few years.
I'm not sure how the situation would have recently changed and that people
suddenly want to start writing a new broker now, but I'm certainly wrong as
I can't back feelings and experience by shiny statistics.
Cheers,
Chris
Cheers,
Chris
So pointing to RedHat for abusive trademarks use or violation simply does
not make any sense to me.
So I don't see that there is anything to fix, but clarifying how the code
currently located in the activemq6 git repository will be named, either
activemq6 or something else, which can't be Apache HornetQ at this point.
2015-04-08 18:09 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org>:
Hi Gary,
Thanks. Well, we have a major problem then - see the
subject of this email thread, and much of the discussion
the last month. The discussion is one of these options:
1. Apache ActiveMQ has multiple products with multiple versions:
a. ActiveMQ - (version 5.x.x)
b. HornetQ - (which some are trying to call ActiveMQ version 6.x.x)
2. Apache ActiveMQ has 1 product with multiple versions:
a. ActiveMQ (version 5.x.x and version 6.x.x)
<—there is NOTHING in this option that mandates the current HornetQ
code becoming 6.x.x of ActiveMQ; also NOTHING stopping that. Decision
needs to be made.
3. Whatever is in the code repo now as ActiveMQ 6.x.x becomes
Apache HornetQ (incubating)
It sounds like you are taking 1b; and and 2a off the table. You
are doing so, b/c Apache doesn’t accept code donations that are
centered around names and trademarks that we don’t own; otherwise
the product is renamed - the proposed renaming of it centers around
abuse of trademarks since the proposed rename leverages an existing
Apache product name. There hasn’t been work here to deal with the due
diligence of trademarks related to the HornetQ name.
The community will need to have a plan for fixing that in its
board report. I suggest working on that plan, rather than trying
to correct my understanding. I also strongly suggest the community
engage with trademarks@ and achieve something acceptable as I’m
fairly sure that this isn’t.
Cheers,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:56 AM
To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <dev@activemq.apache.org>
Cc: <bo...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Hi Chris,
on 1) there may be a misunderstanding here. The code grant is just
that, code. there is no trademark grant. There is no intention of
having apache hornetq, that is not an option with the code grant that
we have. Part of ip clearance and cleanup was to remove all references
to hornetq. 2(3) was the intent.
cheers,
Gary.
On 8 April 2015 at 15:46, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
These are my following concerns as an ASF director that the ActiveMQ
community needs to address.
1. RH has a product, called HornetQ, which includes a website;
branding, etc. http://hornetq.jboss.org/
At a minimum this is an extreme branding confusion if this is
ActiveMQ 6 and even more so if there is a HornetQ branch in an
Apache code repo. We don’t allow companies to come into Apache and
create confusion by importing their *still existing* products into
our neutral zone at the ASF and then keep maintaining their external
websites and so forth. This needs to be rectified, ASAP. If HornetQ
exists in an Apache repo (which it does right now) -
hornetq.jboss.org <http://hornetq.jboss.org>
needs to go away at a date identified by the PMC in its next board
report.
2. The ActiveMQ PMC needs to deliver a plan for: (1) keeping the
community
as 1 project with multiple “products”; or (2) spinning out HornetQ
into
Incubator or straight to TLP; or (3) keeping the community as 1
project
with a single “product”. These are the only options. A choice must
be identified and made by the PMC in its next board report.
I would strongly encourage the community also to think about the
role of the PMC chair in all of this. To that point, the current
chair has been the chair for *many* years and based on the current
status and issues in the community, I would strongly suggest having
a plan for potentially replacing the chair of the project. It’s a
healthy thing to do and these community issues may be better
identified by some fresh blood and energy. I fully expect the above
issues to be discussed, and identified between now and April 22
which is the next board meeting and the PMC’s report.
Cheers,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 5:03 PM
To: <bo...@apache.org>, ActiveMQ-Developers
<dev@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Please note: earlier messages Jim has sent were as "Jim, the
individual"
using his years of experience at Apache to review the situation, and
to
provide feedback. Chris Mattman has also been assisting lately;
again,
as
"Chris, the individual".
This message below is on **behalf of the Board**. Jim may have been
the
messenger, but what is happening in Apache ActiveMQ is now a
specific
concern of the Board. As such, it needs to be addressed per Jim's
note.
Regards,
Greg Stein
ASF Director, and Vice Chairman
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>
wrote:
I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an issue which
is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important
project and community.
As such:
The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going on in
ActiveMQ.
There appear to be two distinct factions under the same ASF
umbrella
of
this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ";
another
is
the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared to start
off
as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow together,
has
instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power
struggle.
The board is not happy about the current state of affairs. The job
of
the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly that
job
is
not being done effectively. The board offers its help and strongly
encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more
pro-active
action is required by the board.
We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ PMC
and a
roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious project,
or as 2 distinct projects.
...
