I didn't say they should be removed. I said their status should be made clear if its established as necessary. I even outlined I dont think they should be removed from the site (how I interpreted comment around leaving just a readme) if they are still considered maintained.
I did say that being used is separate from being actively maintained though. Robbie On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 18:03, Arthur Naseef <[email protected]> wrote: > > So if this is an "outsider looking in," then as one of the insiders, let's > put this to bed. CPP and NMS are used and are not ready to be removed. > > Art > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:22 AM Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > My view is that its a discussion around the status of some components, > > which came up as part of working on an encompassing problem; the > > website. While working toward improvements there Justin has asked what > > I think are reasonable enough questions around the status of these > > bits. > > > > My outsider-looking-in (its an area I don't contribute) view on them > > is that they haven't have an active enough community around them > > lately. I'm happy if that turns out not to be the case, but I think is > > what this thread seeks to try and determine. In part, I think > > discussions like this are good precisely so that folks dont find > > themselves in the kinds of situation you outline below. Its great that > > you have the knowledge and are also willing to help here. > > > > In that particular reply I was asking for clarity on the mail as I > > wasnt sure what its saying, and I think clarity is important here. I > > was not looking to attack anyone, if thats what you felt. > > > > Robbie > > > > On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 16:49, Arthur Naseef <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > What are we doing with this thread? Trying to get individual commitments > > > to putting time into some vague possibility of needed effort in the > > future? > > > > > > Just reading this thread is discouraging. I long to be part of a > > community > > > that works together to constructively solve problems - real problems. > > One > > > of the last ActiveMQ efforts on which I offered to assist was a CVE in > > > which I said I didn't have time to do all the work but would gladly help > > > others. Nobody else stepped up to help and I ended up doing most of the > > > work, with Christopher Shannon stepping up to wrap up the CVE management > > > and release, IIRC. So if we are just looking to attack one another with > > > "you don't help," we can stop - we've reached that place already. > > > > > > BTW, I have more than enough knowledge to help with the ActiveMQ-CPP > > > project, so anyone looking at issues there can reach out to me and we can > > > work *together* on it. NMS, I can also do, but I definitely have a much > > > larger gap to getting NMS built and tested, especially since I really > > don't > > > know C#. Give me a shout via email or on slack if you want to reach me. > > > > > > Art > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 9:02 AM Robbie Gemmell <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > To be clear Jamie, is this you saying you intend to help maintain the > > > > CPP client going forward? > > > > > > > > On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 14:37, Jamie G. <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > I'm still alive - learning life as a new parent, slipping a little on > > > > > reading all the threads for projects I contribute too (Apache, Linux > > > > > Foundation, etc). > > > > > > > > > > In regards to contributing to CPP client, I picked on some issues > > > > > there earlier in the year. Discovered that master branch was not the > > > > > primary maintained branch. After some discussion its clearer how > > > > > future maintenance, and bug fixes can occur. That information was not > > > > > clear to find, it only became clear after rejected PRs. > > > > > > > > > > Given its not always clear what is happening with a sub project if > > its > > > > > not very active, clear readmes and docs are very nice to have. I > > would > > > > > like to see them stay, minimally as APIs. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:50 AM jgenender <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Justin, what seems to be the problem? Not everyone follows every > > > > thread, so > > > > > > they don't always speak up. They don't have to. The JIRA and > > > > comments in > > > > > > past threads speak for themselves. I am simply pointing that out. > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems like you are trying to kill this. You have had a couple > > of > > > > people > > > > > > say there is value. If you want to cut the web part of it because > > its > > > > a > > > > > > PITA, thats fine by me. But the APIs as projects should stay. If > > you > > > > want > > > > > > to link back to old doc, so be it. > > > > > > > > > > > > -1 from me to removing those code bases. I am open to leaving > > them as > > > > a > > > > > > sub-project for code only with a nice readme.md. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Sent from: > > > > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html > > > > > >
