Thanks Alan great to hear. Using .net core would be awesome! Def support that in NMS.
Get Outlook for Android From: alan protasio Sent: Tuesday 19 March, 23:39 Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Status of NMS & CMS To: [email protected] I'm also happy to contribute with those projects where I can. I was trying to port the NMS to .net core some time ago and I'm happy to go forward with it. On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:24 AM Robbie Gemmell wrote: > 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 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 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. > > > 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 > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > >
