So i personally don’t see the need to change anything, apart from maybe some project clarity from the PMC. Im not really seeing the value tbh.
As in previously it has been defined that ActiveMQ Artemis would become ActiveMQ 6 eventually. If that’s not the case and simply we say that the two projects live on and evolve and no longer Artemis is planned as the successor that’s fine, we just need to declare that, a little more formally along with some kind of guidance which broker is best to choose for whom. This seems like a much lower cost approach, to going nuclear with project separations. Regarding if there was a split to a new separate TLPs, a few bits i would want to know before i would vote for this as PMC, and really this is why i don’t think its the best idea to split everything, because there’s a lot to sort to split it all up, for what real value? Anyhow some queries very quickly come to mind for me is: Would all PMC and Committers get rights to all new TLP’s automatically? Both brokers and the clients we create rely on OpenWire protocol and aim to support all its features, if OpenWire protocol evolves (which it may need to do) atm this lives on in the classic sub project (aka ActiveMQ 5.x) so this is fine whilst everything is under the same umbrella, as we have therefor the same PMC to handle that in both projects. Do we want to therefor also split out OpenWire as its own project, so it has a shared governance for both future projects? Similar to that AMQP has its own separate governance that both brokers just adhere to? Further to that then and if so where do OpenWire clients all (JMS OpenWire, NMS OpenWire, CMS OpenWire sit? In the OpenWire project? Likewise where does bits like PooledConnectionFactory that can be shared and but sits in ActiveMQ code base atm then move to? I assume it might move with the JMS OpenWire client. Ok great but then where does the CMS/NMS apis governance sit (not implementation)? Do we sit that still in ActiveMQ? Do we move it to its own TLP? Do we move it to OpenWire? Lastly, what about naming? I don’t like the idea of just Apache Artemis, nor ArtemisMQ , for me it was named Artemis simply because of the previous dumped Apollo project, maybe a better named should be found? And then what about existing users, the code base is littered with org.apache.activemq.artemis.* if TLP move occurred, there’d need to be some package migration that would need to be done in a non breaking fashion where people have developed on and around the current code base apis and packaged. As such id like to see much more a proposed plan for everything before any vote. Best Mike > On 19 Mar 2021, at 16:27, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > Fair enough, let’s wait more PMC/dev feedback. > > Regards > JB > >> Le 19 mars 2021 à 17:25, Christopher Shannon >> <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >> 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/> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >
