I'd like to see more PMC members chime in to get thoughts and continue the discussion before proposing a vote.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 12:10 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > I agree. > > If no objection, I would start a vote to propose Artemis as TLP. > > Thoughts ? > > Regards > JB > > > Le 19 mars 2021 à 17:00, Jonathan Gallimore < > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > I personally feel that renaming Classic to Leto has the potential to > > further confuse people. I'd be +1 on Artemis becoming its own TLP. > > > > Jon > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 3:37 PM Christopher Shannon < > > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> JB, > >> > >> Right, I am a user of both products also. I am still a heavy 5.x/Classic > >> user but I also am still trying to get my project/team onto Artemis as > well > >> but migration is always slow. I'm also working quite heavily with Kafka > now > >> as well which has taken up a lot of my time and prevented me from > having as > >> much interaction with AMQ recently. Having a separate TLP does not stop > >> anyone from contributing and using both projects but it does make > things a > >> lot easier I think in terms of naming, versioning, etc. I think it also > >> just adds a lot more clarity for the users. Also, even as its own TLP, > >> there is no reason why Artemis can't still have a goal to be feature > >> compliant with ActiveMQ 5.x. > >> > >> A pretty good example about how things are confusing right now is > Artemis > >> has been advertised as the next generation but there has been a lot of > >> discussion recently about 5.x release cycles, upgrading the datastore, > JMS > >> 2.0 upgrades, etc. Basically it looks like it is still being actively > >> development (which it is) so a user might be pretty confused about which > >> broker to pick and what is going on long term. > >> > >> Anyways, I can only speak for myself so maybe most people still think > the > >> two projects should stay together under 1 umbrella. If I am in the > minority > >> and most people want to keep everything together that is fine. > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 11:15 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> 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 < > >>> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> 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 < > j...@nanthrax.net > >>> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> > >>>> 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 <bruce.sny...@gmail.com > >> <mailto: > >>> bruce.sny...@gmail.com>> 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 <gary.tu...@gmail.com > >>> <mailto:gary.tu...@gmail.com>> 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 < > j...@nanthrax.net > >>> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> > >>>>>>> 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 > >>> <tetlu...@amazon.com.INVALID <mailto:tetlu...@amazon.com.INVALID> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> 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" <jbert...@apache.org > >>> <mailto:jbert...@apache.org>> > >>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>> <tetlu...@amazon.com.invalid <mailto:tetlu...@amazon.com.invalid > >>>> > >>> 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" <j...@nanthrax.net > >>> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> > >>>>>>> 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 <jbert...@apache.org > >>> <mailto:jbert...@apache.org>> 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 < > >>>>>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 < > >>> robbie.gemm...@gmail.com > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 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 < > >>>>>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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/> > >>> > >>> > >> > >
