I don't see the need or the point of taking Artemis toward becoming a TLP. This would further segregate everything and probably wouldn't make sense to the board. We need to fulfill the plans we made initially when HornetQ was donated.
The main thing preventing any movement toward Artemis as the next gen broker is because we have not been selling/messaging it this way to the user community. In the six years since HornetQ was donated, we have not published any plans for the community (i.e., on the website) describing the intended plan. I think this is due to the fact that most folks were focused on Artemis development and working on moving toward feature parity with ActiveMQ Classic. We need to change this. So, let's develop a plan and publish it. Bruce On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 1:18 PM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > <michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> 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 <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/> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > > > -- 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/>
