Sorry to rush things.. I’ll kick out a new [DISCUSS] thread > On Mar 23, 2026, at 11:03 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi > > I'm a bit surprised by this vote. > > Generally, at Apache, we start with a discussion, towards consensus. A vote > happens only if we are not able to get consensus easily. > We had discussions on the PR, and I suggested starting a discussion on the > dev@, especially to identify the activemq-protobuf consumer. > > I'm not against it, but I would start with a discussion (like [DISCUSS] or > [PROPOSAL]) instead of a vote. > > Regards > JB > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 3:57 PM Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The activemq-protobuf project was split out from the main line project a >> while ago and I don’t think it serves the project having it split out. >> >> 1. It is more work to maintain an independent module that is rarely used >> by any other project (JDK alignment, Maven modules, release, vote, issues, >> etc) >> see: >> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.activemq.protobuf/activemq-protobuf/1.1 >> >> Note: The next release would automatically signal an upgrade to any >> consumer of this jar by the version number being higher than the current >> >> 2. Having this hosted will allow us to more quickly experiment and modify >> the broker for any datastore changes that need to be made— changes to >> activemq-protobuf and other activemq-* modules may need to be merged >> together for feature changes vs ‘guessing’ if a design works in >> activemq-protobuf, releasing and then changing the main broker modules. >> >> PR discussion here: >> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/1209 >> >> Here is my +1 (binding) >> >> -Matt Pavlovich
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
