Thanks for the feedback Mike, these are all fair points. There is certainly a lot to consider before any vote is started as splitting stuff up would be a big deal. In terms of PMC I would think anyone on the current PMC should be able to be on either or both if they want.
For what it is worth this is what happened last time a formal vote was started without any real discussion ahead of time: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Graduate-Artemis-as-TLP-tp4733584.html As you can see it did not go well. On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 2:51 PM Michael André Pearce <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Fair enough, let’s wait more PMC/dev feedback. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > >> Le 19 mars 2021 à 17:25, Christopher Shannon < > [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > >> 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 < > >>> [email protected]> 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 < > >>>> [email protected]> 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 < > [email protected]> > >>>>> 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 < > >>>>>> [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/> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > > > >
