Hadrian, inline On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 15:56 Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote:
> Gary, > > That is precisely what folks vote -1 against. That is what I wish to clarify but I presume you speak for your self here. > I hope you are not > implying that the -1s should not be counted because you believe the -1s > where for a different reason. > your hope has come true, there is no such implication. > 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? > > Artemis has got OpenWire support, a plugin framework and a console. Features that mirror 5.x. There is a bunch of artemis activity on the user list and the the dev list. Apollo work has stoped. The activemq website still needs love and the activemq project clearly needs a future direction beyond 5.x Can we agree that this vote is a PR/marketing play, not technology? I agree marketing has a part in this, marketing the ActiveMQ brand as a live project and reflecting the good work that the artemis devs are doing. And sorting out or website has a huge part to play in that. But I cannot agree that this is not about technology. As some one who has intimate knowledge of 5.x I can categorically say that it is not the basis for future development. It does what it does really well but making change to that code base and not breaking existing users is very difficult. In a way it is a victim of its own success, but a victim none the less. > 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? > > It is about getting some consensus on a future. Nearly 3years have passed since we accepted the hornetq donation in good faith. Contributions to 5.x have dwindled and contributions to artemis have grown. > 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. > > We cannot predict the future, we can only make it happen and I see the energy around artemis provides a future path. The alternative is more stagnation. /gary. > On 12/06/2017 10:45 AM, Gary Tully wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <[email protected]> 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. > > >
