Robbie Gemmell wrote > After it sat going stale and unmaintained for years. It also took an > age to follow through on the vote to mark it deprecated. > > A clear discussion like this around Apollo would have been great far > sooner in my view.
It was discussed. IIRC, there was a good discussion surrounding HornetQ coming in and Apollo possibly going out, etc. Its been brought up numerous times. Its just nobody followed through on any form of deprecation. Robbie Gemmell wrote > I dont recall saying anything was unanimously sunset, only that this > thread was a good means to better establish the status of the > components, and that "If it becomes clear" the status was similar, > then it would in fact be similar. It certainly was discussed including a vote on deprecating it, leading to that blurb at the top of this page: http://activemq.apache.org/leveldb-store.html Robbie Gemmell wrote > I dont really see linux drivers etc as comparable personally. Download > pages, release notes, docs etc don't seem like optional things for a > component of an Apache project to me. > > That said, I'm not offering to maintain these pages as I have enough > site maintainence to do elsewhere already. I am merely stating my > opinion, as you are. No... this is where you are incorrect. If you don't see it as equal and you need a web site, then don't complain about it unless you are willing to pick up a shovel. Offering up your opinion in the manner that you did is a bike-shed (http://bikeshed.com/) moment. Don't state it unless you are willing to do something about it or provide some form of meaningful information. Robbie Gemmell wrote >> If you are adamant about a website, then pick up a shovel and >> step up to do it. Thats an easy way to get commit. > > I've had commit rights for some years now, but thanks for the tip. Interestingly enough, I have never heard of you, but low and behold you are a committer. I don't see much activity from you for ActiveMQ. My bad... surprisingly you are a committer of some form here (Artemis?). Its interesting how the left arm knows nothing about the right arm... which is a shame. Robbie Gemmell wrote > Indeed, which is why discussions like this are good to help bring out > who is interested in doing what. I dont see any issue or downside to > having clarifying discussions like this to help get a shared view on a > given situation, I get the feeling that some do though. No... there is certainly nothing wrong with the discussions. Its delivery and how things are broadcasted impacts the way people take the message. When we have 2 semi-competing projects under the ActiveMQ arm and one side pushes hard, and the other side does not, it becomes a sticky situation. The overall feel of this discussion has been "deprecating" or "retiring", with undertones of not knowing if its being used, particularly from folks who haven't even contributed to discussions on those projects in the past. Then arguments ensue about who uses it and who does not. 99.9999% of the users of the APIs and ActiveMQ will never see this email thread. So you are not going to get a deluge of people coming in and saying "I use it!". You need to take the word of your co-committers. Yes, I really wish that those who have an agenda/job to proliferate a certain project due to their work would be more inviting to the project as a whole, which could alleviate a large degree of where these discussions decompose. Jeff -- Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
