Gary,
That is precisely what folks vote -1 against. I hope you are not
implying that the -1s should not be counted because you believe the -1s
where for a different reason.
Surely you must remember the same issue being raised and a vote called
some 2 years ago if my memory serves me well (I can look it up if
necessary). Exactly same vote, exactly same statement of intent. You
know how that went. What changed to start it all over again?
Can we agree that this vote is a PR/marketing play, not technology? This
is not a vote for a controversial feature people can't agree on, nor on
accepting an external contribution, nor a release vote. What is it?
Some see Artemis as the future of ActiveMQ. Other gray beards see it as
a project that needs to get more adoption an prove itself before it's
clear that it can be the evolution of the current 5.x version that
serves the market very well (proven yet again by AWS). No consensus yet.
Hadrian
On 12/06/2017 10:45 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <bruce.sny...@gmail.com> wrote:
My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially state
the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
concerns.
This was also my understanding and what I voted for.
Maybe the intent of the vote needs to be clarified.
is this what folks voted against?
gary.
