@Jeff: All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and future.
We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and release whenever it was ready. We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what would drive people using it.. etc.. etc.. Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no adoption, and there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at the website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help at all!!!). If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on the website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into here). Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these agenda items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view on where we will get. So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis more prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get? On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <jgenen...@apache.org> wrote: > There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying agenda as > you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies. Sorry, > just calling a spade a spade. Its definitely bringing back the > knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago. That's a shame and > I really hope that is not the direction this is going. > > This is a PR vote that also becomes technical. It's PR because some folks > are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now. Its technical > because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from AMQ5. > I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic - whatever) is > being deprecated", but guess what? Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means its > the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the old. > Remember AMQ3->4->5. Its an assumption that has been made on numerical > versions for a majority of software and this one in particular - that's > technical. It does make illusions of deprecation. So this is both PR *and* > technical. > > My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis ultimately > becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has reasonable > compatibility with AMQ5. NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some basic > stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running AMQ5, > which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority of our > community. > > The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very reasonable. > Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line so > that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version. Why is that > viewed as so unreasonable? > > I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming and > vendors and versions. This is a problem because there is an agenda and > there is cross marketing going on. Look at this blog: > > https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-what-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/ > > Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo: > > https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/ > > Is it 2 or is it 7? Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ? This repo has a numbering > with our name on it, but is it even our code? So when I hear people in the > community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh? There is no > ActiveMQ 7". After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss AMQ 7. > > So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do with > vendors, but lets be honest. This has everything to do with vendors and > this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it. At the end of the day and > in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with this. > But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately clouds > this immensely. > > So I ask this. It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers here are > ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6. They are asking a > relative simple request: Can we please increase the community adoption and > get it more compatible before renaming it? That makes this non-technical > once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis == ActiveMQ 6. > IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in HornetQ and > why it was named Artemis to begin with. > > Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon when > bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and eat it > too. > > > > -- > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html -- Clebert Suconic
