Hi Chris, I’m sharing the same feeling and analyze.
Even if I plan to work more on Artemis (first PR will happen soon ;)), the current situation is what you describe: we have two communities. It’s not a bad thing IMHO, it happens in all projects, with time and resulting of some decisions taken. Regards JB > Le 19 mars 2021 à 16:02, Christopher Shannon > <[email protected]> a écrit : > > The real issue here is quite obvious and demonstrated over the last several > years and that is the goal isn't really agreed upon by everyone. Some > people think the goal should be to make Artemis the next generation and > others don't agree with that. > > Personally, while I still think having one broker to rally upon and make > the best broker possible (Artemis) should be the goal, the realist in me > does not believe this will ever happen without significant push back from > the members of the community that do not want this to happen. > > Over the past couple of years my opinion has swayed now to simply making > Artemis its own TLP. Even after 6 years we have 2 separate communities > entirely. We basically have 2 independent projects with almost no overlap > between developers and users so why not just make Artemis its own TLP? I > really see no benefit of operating under the same umbrella anymore (I guess > maybe if you want to keep the branding) > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 10:57 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I understand the point. My main concern was in term of versioning (I don’t >> want to "block" ActiveMQ to do a 6, 7, 8 or whatever release). >> >> Sorry, but classic is something I don’t fully understand (maybe my French >> culture ;)). I don’t see what’s "classic" (or maybe in term of "previous" >> or "older") is. Maybe "vintage" (like classical music compare to house >> music) ;) ? >> >> And, anyway, nobody is using "classic": for the users I know, they use >> ActiveMQ and Artemis (not ActiveMQ Classic or ActiveMQ Artemis). >> >> So, if you agree to have: >> >> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis <http://activemq.apache.org/artemis> >> <http://activemq.apache.org/artemis <http://activemq.apache.org/artemis>> >> http://activemq.apache.org/activemq <http://activemq.apache.org/activemq> >> <http://activemq.apache.org/activemq <http://activemq.apache.org/activemq>> >> >> I think it’s even better than introducing a new name, I agree. >> >> Then, I’m changing the proposal/question: agree to use activemq and >> Artemis on website ? >> >> Regards >> JB >> >>> Le 19 mars 2021 à 15:48, Bruce Snyder <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : >>> >>> Gary stated this well. I agree completely with all of his sentiments >> here. >>> >>> I don't see the point to introducing yet another name as this will muddy >>> these waters even further, not clarify them. Artemis was meant to be a >> code >>> name until it matched ActiveMQ enough to be a drop-in replacement. I >> don't >>> believe that this goal has been achieved yet, has it? Is this still an >>> active goal? >>> >>> Classic is an appropriate and deliberate name that was being discussed as >>> far back as just prior to the HornetQ donation. If we start officially >>> referring to it as ActiveMQ Classic, then we need to explain the intent >>> behind this name via the website. >>> >>> Agreed, the Classic stream needs a major version bump before those >>> incompatible changes are introduced. Do this and move forward with those >>> incompatible changes. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 8:29 AM Gary Tully <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi JB, >>>> I think "classic" is a good name precisely because of its meaning, it >>>> reflects its value and is a good way to differentiate on the website. >>>> >>>> But I don't think the classic stream should be limited in versioning. >>>> If for good reason (a new incompatible openwire version/storage >>>> incompatible change/large config update) it needs a major version >>>> increment, then go for it. >>>> >>>> Artemis was always intended as a code name, a generic title, a >>>> temporary moniker, till it could take on the activemq mantle, but it >>>> does not have to be 6, it can be 10 or 20, or it can be ActiveMQ >>>> Artemis. >>>> >>>> I don't see any point in introducing another "brand" name, the >>>> versioning will be sufficient if we want to consolidate on the >>>> activemq name in the future, and the Artemis sub brand will be >>>> sufficient if we don't. >>>> >>>> to speak to Lucas, the plan for Artemis is to be be a better ActiveMQ >>>> >>>> kind regards, >>>> gary. >>>> >>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 04:49, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Like any Apache (and OpenSource) project, ActiveMQ "umbrella" project >> is >>>> living and roadmap evolves. >>>>> >>>>> Justin is right with the project history, but I think the initial >> target >>>> to "replace" ActiveMQ with Artemis evolves, due to the users. >>>>> >>>>> Personally, I’m saying still lot of ActiveMQ users, not planning to >>>> change to Artemis, and even brand new installation starts with ActiveMQ >>>> (not Artemis). >>>>> Furthermore, in term of features, there are some gaps between ActiveMQ >>>> and Artemis IMHO. >>>>> >>>>> I think the mistake was to create a separated repo for Artemis: if >>>> Artemis was ActiveMQ "master" branch at the time of the donation, then, >> the >>>> update would be straight forward. >>>>> >>>>> So, clearly, IMHO, we have two completed separated projects between >>>> ActiveMQ and Artemis, because the communities (both users and >> contributors) >>>> are not the same. >>>>> >>>>> A possible path to that Artemis become Apache TLP (and so ActiveMQ >>>> Artemis name), and ActiveMQ "classic" stays what he’s: Apache ActiveMQ. >>>>> >>>>> If the PMC don’t want to "move" as a TLP, then we should at least give >>>> space for the two subprojects in the ActiveMQ umbrella and clearly >> identify >>>> who is what. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> JB >>>>> >>>>>> Le 19 mars 2021 à 05:13, Tetreault, Lucas <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >>>> a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> Hey Justin, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the additional context. As a newcomer, it seems to me like >>>> both ActiveMQ "Classic" and Artemis are alive and well. 6 years and 2 >> major >>>> versions in to development, is the goal and focus for Artemis still on >>>> feature parity and becoming ActiveMQ 6? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Lucas >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2021-03-18, 8:38 PM, "Justin Bertram" <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do >>>> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender >> and >>>> know the content is safe. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Lucas, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure you've been around the ActiveMQ community for very >>>> long or >>>>>> maybe you have been and forgot some of the history. In any case, >>>> I'll >>>>>> summarize briefly. >>>>>> >>>>>> Over a decade ago Hiram Chirino, one of the original ActiveMQ >>>> developers >>>>>> and chair of the ActiveMQ PMC at the time, created a new broker >>>> under the >>>>>> ActiveMQ banner named Apollo. It was designed on a non-blocking >>>>>> architecture for much better performance than the existing ActiveMQ >>>>>> architecture [1]. After ActiveMQ Apollo 1.0 was released the stated >>>> goal of >>>>>> this project was for it to eventually be integrated with the >>>> mainline >>>>>> ActiveMQ code-base and serve as its replacement [2]. This fact was >>>>>> advertised on the ActiveMQ website although there are no longer any >>>>>> references to that since the website was redesigned & updated a >>>> year or so >>>>>> ago. For whatever reason Apollo never acquired the critical mass >>>> necessary >>>>>> to replace mainline ActiveMQ. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then about 6 years ago the HornetQ code-base was donated to the >>>> ActiveMQ >>>>>> community and that donation was accepted with the goal of creating >>>> the next >>>>>> generation ActiveMQ broker that would eventually become version 6. >>>> Since >>>>>> that time work has steadily progressed on the Artemis code-base to >>>> bring >>>>>> sufficient feature parity with mainline ActiveMQ to allow users to >>>>>> transition. Again, this has been communicated via the website and >>>> other >>>>>> support channels for the last several years. >>>>>> >>>>>> For what it's worth, I hope that clarifies the current state of >>>> affairs. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Justin >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] >>>>>> >>>> >> https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2011/01/17/activemq-apollo-looking-impressive/ >> <https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2011/01/17/activemq-apollo-looking-impressive/> >>>>>> [2] >>>> https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2012/02/03/apache-apollo-1-0-released/ >>>> <https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2012/02/03/apache-apollo-1-0-released/> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:02 PM Tetreault, Lucas >>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems to me like the core problem here is that there are two >>>> distinct >>>>>>> projects operating under one brand and it creates confusion. I agree >>>> with >>>>>>> JB that the "ActiveMQ Classic" and "ActiveMQ 5" branding are not >>>> ideal. >>>>>>> However, I think that renaming it to ActiveMQ Leto will further >>>> dilute the >>>>>>> ActiveMQ brand and create more confusion for users. Why not just >>>> "ActiveMQ" >>>>>>> and "Artemis"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Lucas >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2021-03-18, 6:54 AM, "Jean-Baptiste Onofre" <[email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do >>>>>>> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender >>>> and >>>>>>> know the content is safe. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Justin, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would rather to ActiveMQ Leto 5.17.0 (and then Leto 6.0 at some >>>>>>> point). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> JB >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le 18 mars 2021 à 14:51, Justin Bertram <[email protected] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> a >>>>>>> écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not clear on the versioning you're proposing. Are you saying >>>>>>> that the >>>>>>>> first release of this subproject would be ActiveMQ Leto 1.0? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Justin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 7:46 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre < >>>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Robbie, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My point is about "classic". I understand the meaning but I think >>>>>>> it’s not >>>>>>>>> a good "tagging". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don’t want to focus on ActiveMQ 5.x, because it prevents us to >> use >>>>>>>>> another versioning. >>>>>>>>> Why not ActiveMQ 6.0 that would be a new major ActiveMQ release. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To summarize: >>>>>>>>> 1. ActiveMQ 5.x is too restrictive for versioning >>>>>>>>> 2. Classic is not a good "naming/tagging". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That’s why I’m proposing a new identified name. It means we would >>>>>>> have: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Apache ActiveMQ Artemis >>>>>>>>> - Apache ActiveMQ Leto >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IMHO, it’s two subprojects under the same "umbrella" (like we have >>>>>>> Camel >>>>>>>>> K, Camel Spring Boot, Camel Karaf, or Karaf runtime, Karaf >>>>>>> Decanter, Karaf >>>>>>>>> Cave, etc). >>>>>>>>> Each subproject deserves a clear naming. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> About the website, you got my point: I would like to get all wiki >>>>>>> based >>>>>>>>> resources, update and clean it to push on a dedicated sub context >>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>> website: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis < >>>>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis> >>>>>>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/leto <http://activemq.apache.org/leto> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Each with its own announcement, download, documentation resources. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Le 18 mars 2021 à 12:19, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected] >>> >>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> écrit : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The 'classic' terminology on the homepage is used more as a >>>>>>>>>> description rather than a name to me, speaking to its quality and >>>>>>>>>> vintage and in some small straightforward way. ActiveMQ 5 is still >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> way the broker is referenced on the site as a whole so far as I >>>>>>> see, >>>>>>>>>> rather than ActiveMQ Classic. Essentially everywhere besides the >>>>>>>>>> subdir name being 'classic' in the URL for grouping some of the >>>>>>> newest >>>>>>>>>> component pages. I dont think 'Leto' is particularly more useful >>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>> 'classic' as a description, and especially not an improvement for >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> subdir in the URL at this point. It would be quite the opposite >>>>>>> for me >>>>>>>>>> personally, I think it would be a bad idea. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Changing the subdir on the site from 'classic' to something else >>>>>>>>>> simplistic and direct such as 5 or 5x or 5.x? Sure, I can see >> that. >>>>>>>>>> Dropping the "Classic" description suffix from the central box on >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> homepage, leaving only the ActiveMQ 5 titling? By all means. Leto? >>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> dont really see that being an improvement at this point at all. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On your other proposal of cleaning up mess, presumably that means >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> mass of old 5.x wiki-derived pages on the site in the root (done >> to >>>>>>>>>> preserve URLs during the site changeover I believe, over >>>>>>>>>> individual-page redirects) that are rarely ever touched, and >> moving >>>>>>>>>> such content into the subdir? Sounds great. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Robbie >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 08:30, Jean-Baptiste Onofre < >>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to bring on the table the naming of Apache ActiveMQ. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think "Classic" is not a good name, and it doesn’t mean >>>>>>> anything. I >>>>>>>>> think it would make more sense to have a generic name. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As we have Apache ActiveMQ Artemis, I would like to propose >> Apache >>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ Leto. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> From a cultural standpoint ;), Artemis is the Greek goddess of >> the >>>>>>>>> hunt, the wilderness, wild animals, the Moon, and chastity. Artemis >>>>>>> is the >>>>>>>>> daughter of Zeus and Leto, and the twin sister of Apollo. >>>>>>>>>>> As "ActiveMQ Classic" is "older" than Artemis, I propose to >>>>>>> rename as >>>>>>>>> Apache ActiveMQ Leto. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This name change won’t impact the code repository, it’s more for >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> website. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Related to that proposal, I would like to propose also to create >> a >>>>>>>>> dedicated space for Leto: http://activemq.apache.org/leto < >>>>>>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/leto> with a complete cleanup of the >>>>>>> mess we >>>>>>>>> have today (documentation, download page, announcements, etc). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts ? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> perl -e 'print >>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' >>> http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
