Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments and documentation

+1 On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:48 PM Guillaume Nodet wrote: > Le mer. 15 juil. 2020 à 00:06, Hadrian Zbarcea a > écrit : > > > Justin, > > > > I wrote else-thread that actually, all the terms mentioned, including > > "active", "passive&quo

Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments and documentation

Justin, I wrote else-thread that actually, all the terms mentioned, including "active", "passive" and "standby" (which I actually like), have little to do with ActiveMQ actually and more to do with the deployment topology. And they apply to not only AMQ brokers, but any services deployed for

Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments and documentation

Hi Clebert, There absolutely isn't general consensus on the terminology used :). Like you (I infer from what you wrote), I don't see how the terms would be offensive. They have a clear, well documented, meaning for many decades and they clearly apply to computers and services, not humans.

Re: Replace racially charged terms throughout source code, comments and documentation

It sounds to me that we are getting involved more in politics than computer science. Be it as it may, it would be good to understand that every change we make will incur a cost for many of our downstream users. Change their build systems to use a different branch name, testing, qualifying. I

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Agree with Jeff. I will address another question that was raised, I think by Chris, below. I think it was aggressive, not characteristic to him, so let's say he deserves an honest answer. First off, I am not sure what your definition of contributions to the project is. I am also curious what

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Martyn, you continue to misrepresent things. When we say RH on this thread it's pretty clear what it means. It was said before, we prefer to use this term to refer to a group that does have an agenda. There are a few people who refuse to have conversations that ignore the elephant in the

Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Artemis as TLP

, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: What am I saying? There you have the authority in the field :). John, the projects are in fact separated, Artemis is actually the donated HornetQ project. It's not like 2 factions don't agree on the future of one project.

Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Artemis as TLP

parating the project. On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:20 PM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: Would Artemis need to go through the incubator process to make this happen or could it immediately become its own TLP if that was agreed upon? On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:05

Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Artemis as TLP

. Problem solved. Hadrian On 12/06/2017 10:19 PM, Christopher Shannon wrote: Would Artemis need to go through the incubator process to make this happen or could it immediately become its own TLP if that was agreed upon? On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com>

[DISCUSS] Graduate Artemis as TLP

Since Artemis has a kernel of developers had a few releases, and hard-core Artemis believers want to be in control of their own destiny and they believe the project can be sustained on its own merits and have it's own awesome site, I propose that Artemis form its own PMC and start a vote to

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

According to this vote so far there are 13 (including me) who are in favor of Artemis becoming ActiveMQ 6 and 4 who are opposed. That's 76% to 24% respectively. Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems like consensus to me. Justin On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com&g

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Some people are capable of working towards a goal without a vote. Back in the day hackers would get together get some beers and with a "wouldn't it be f* awesome if..." in mind would put something together quickly, talk with unfakeable passion about the stuff and help other geeks be

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Clebert, your goal should not be an ActiveMQ 6. IMHO totally short sighted. Why not shoot for making Artemis the best messaging system under the sun. It won't matter how it's called then. This kind of looks like desperation to get adoption via whatever means, screw the consequences for

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Clebert, nobody says to not promote it. Just promote it as what it is, ActiveMQ Artemis. You hope, and I believe you're well intended, is that the PR trick of calling it ActiveMQ 6 will drive adoption. But that won't be on its merit, but piggybacking on the ActiveMQ reputation. This point of

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

based on that vision. I think I am not alone in believing that. I understand that others have different views and I respect that. On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: On 12/06/2017 10:56 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote: Perhaps we need to clar

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

On 12/06/2017 10:56 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote: Perhaps we need to clarify what is being proposed with very explicit statements and recast the vote? What would that change? Do you have any doubts that people understood what the vote is for and voted accordingly? Bruce

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Gary, That is precisely what folks vote -1 against. I hope you are not implying that the -1s should not be counted because you believe the -1s where for a different reason. Surely you must remember the same issue being raised and a vote called some 2 years ago if my memory serves me well (I

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Mike, While I agree with most of what you state, I fail to see the relevance. When a user upgrades from project FOO version N to FOO version N+1, there is an expectation of reasonable backwards compatibility. Version N+1 may or may not be a complete rewrite, but rules of engagement are

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

-1 this intent was expressed a while ago and the result was keeping HornetQ under the Artemis (sister of Apollo) name until such a time where there is evidence of adoption and migration away from the 5.x. ActiveMQ 5.x is very much in use and has much, much broader adoption than Artemis. One

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

-1 agree with Rob Hadrian On 12/05/2017 05:17 AM, Rob Davies wrote: [0] - without a clear migration path and tooling to assist existing users moving from ActiveMQ 5 to Artemis, we risk abandoning those users - who may then be forced to look at alternatives and abandon ActiveMQ all

Re: [DISCUSS] New logo discussion

One important thing to decide here is what 'message' do we want the logo to convey: * messaging (envelopes come to mind) * scalability * security (locks, fingerprints) * something else That would help a designer focus on an idea. Relying on a designer to already know what activemq stands for

Re: Websites still using old ASF logos - update logo instead of site?

It also didn't get as much foot traffic :) On 04/24/2017 10:33 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote: That also reminds us how much refacing the website needs. I just refaced my kitchen. And look. It wasn't as old as this website. ;) On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 8:04 AM Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.

Fwd: Websites still using old ASF logos - update logo instead of site?

FYI Forwarded Message Subject: Websites still using old ASF logos - update logo instead of site? Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 12:38:36 +0100 From: sebb To: us...@infra.apache.org Quite a few websites are still using the old ASF logos. For example:

Re: [VOTE] Migrate the NMS Projects from SVN to Git

+1 Hadrian On 02/22/2017 06:25 PM, Timothy Bish wrote: Since the discussion around moving the NMS code to Git has died down now I've decided to just call a vote on the matter. The vote covers moving the following NMS projects SVN trees to their own respective Git repositories and marking the

Re: Many old open PRs

would be difficult to do this for all of them.. just for a future workflow. On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: I had a quick chat with infra. The only two options to close a PR are "This closes #..." or open a ticket. I doubt a new option will be

Re: Many old open PRs

you will need to ask infra. As no one outside the Apache infra have auth to close the PR. On Sunday, October 23, 2016, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: Good idea Hadrian. I will try to take a look. Regards JB ⁣ On Oct 23, 2016, 03:48, at 03:48, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...

Re: Many old open PRs

class that had its own test. No where else was that class instantiated so no other test would fail anyways. On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: Started to look into old PRs, some should not be merged. I'll see if I could sort it out with infra to ge

Re: Many old open PRs

On 11/01/2016 02:12 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: Started to look into old PRs, some should not be merged. I'll see if I could sort it out with infra to get them closed without a commit, although imho, a commit like "This closes #xxx. Intentionally not merged" is better, as it

Re: Many old open PRs

test fail intermittently, some just fail and jenkins didn't have a clean build in a while. I'll look into those too. Cheers, Hadrian On 10/23/2016 02:11 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: Good idea Hadrian. I will try to take a look. Regards JB ⁣​ On Oct 23, 2016, 03:48, at 03:48, Hadrian Zbar

Many old open PRs

There are a number of old, even very old, PRs open [1]. Some I suspect are not relevant anymore. It'd be great if somebody could look into them and close them down. I will try to find some time next week and help with that as well. Cheers, Hadrian [1] https://github.com/apache/activemq/pulls

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

I would suggest discussing the goals for such a console first. Is it intended to monitory just one broker instance or a whole network of brokers? Should it manage just the brokers or other services? Should it rely on JMX or something else? Then one can think about reusing and/or improving

Re: Discussion: JMS 2.0 API support

Please check the following (vote up if necessary). There's obviously duplication. Cheers, Hadrian [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5383 [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5736 [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6455 On 06/15/2015 09:28 AM,

Re: Git workflow for committers

I volunteer. How badly do you want it broken? Hadrian On 06/09/2015 12:20 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: On Jun 9, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Clebert Suconic clebert.suco...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org wrote: Just to follow up, I have nothing against

Re: ActiveMQ on raspberry pi

You don't necessarily need to run the server (broker) on the same system, right? On the pi I ran it embedded. Please look at Jamie G.'s pointers, his work is more recent than mine. Hadrian On 04/27/2015 03:06 AM, rzgheib wrote: To run activeMQ Client or server I have to run the broker first

Re: ActiveMQ on raspberry pi

I did get it to work some two years ago on a model B with a 5.9-snapshot embedded, iirc. However, from your description, isn't it sufficient to only run the client app on the pi and have the broker run on a server somewhere else? Cheers, Hadrian On 04/25/2015 05:34 AM, rzgheib wrote: Hi,

Re: ActiveMQ on raspberry pi

Rita, As you progress in your project, it'd be great if you could document and share it. Best, Hadrian On 04/25/2015 11:58 AM, Jamie G. wrote: Hi, RPi can certainly run ActiveMQ, however you're going to need to do some modifications for the platform. o JDK 1.8 for Arm will not have server

Re: [REPORT] Apache ActiveMQ

I made the request to include a statement in the report about hortneq growing in the incubator. It was ignored. Here's a bit of advice on how to pull this off. Ask the board for more time for discussions in the PMC. In the meatime, people like me will wear out (personally, I am and I wasted

Re: Special Board Report

have to send this in before the 22nd so really today is the last day I can hold off so that I can send it on the 21st so that the board has at least 24 hours to review before their meeting. On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: One more thing. It's

Re: Special Board Report

at least 24 hours to review before their meeting. On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: One more thing. It's the responsibility of the PMC chair to provide a timely report to the board. It's entirely his choice how he wants to go about it, what he decides

Re: Special Board Report

Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: Except that the discussion was started weeks ago and questions are constantly ignored. Hadrian On 04/20/2015 07:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: Uhm, what were we doing for the past 2 weeks

Re: Special Board Report

the board) could be addressed before the meeting. Cheers, Hadrian On 04/20/2015 05:23 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: Ok so, then it sounds like your ok with the report the way it is right now. On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: I have nothing to write

Re: Special Board Report

. if that's the case I have no control over what happened in the past, and I would appreciate if I was judged by my own mistakes on that case (at least I would be able to amend my own mistakes). On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: Look Hiram, there already

Re: Special Board Report

Except that the discussion was started weeks ago and questions are constantly ignored. Hadrian On 04/20/2015 07:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: Uhm, what were we doing for the past 2 weeks? On two lists, multiple threads

Re: Special Board Report

, Hadrian On 04/20/2015 02:39 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: Hadrian, please write up what you want to include in the board report that way the rest of the PMC can review. On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: First, the report is late. Second, I don't think

Re: Special Board Report

that some interests seem to be clouding common sense. Why didn't you guys admit a few weeks back that it was a mistake? Actually, when did you realize it was a mistake? Hadrian On 04/20/2015 08:54 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com

Re: Special Board Report

it was going to happen. On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:46 PM Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: Uhm, what were we doing for the past 2 weeks? On two lists, multiple threads? I assume you are aware of my recommendation to have hornetq grow independently in the incubator. That proposal was rejected

Re: Special Board Report

First, the report is late. Second, I don't think it addresses the problems. Third, I made a request to please include in the report an explanation about why hornetq moving to the incubator is a non-starter for Fuse crowd. It is very frustrating that requests get ignored. Hadrian On

Re: Special Board Report

PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: Hadrian, please write up what you want to include in the board report that way the rest of the PMC can review. On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: First, the report is late. Second, I don't think it addresses the problems. Third, I

Re: Plan clarification

I would like the report to explain why the hornetq donation could/should not happen in the incubator. The code podling currently lacks diversity. Hiding it under the activemq project complicates the diversity problems that already exist in activemq. It seems to me that by keeping it under

Re: [VOTE] Pick a code name for the HornetQ code donation

Assuming she made some contributions to the community, she is part of the community and her vote does count. Cheers, Hadrian On 04/17/2015 11:45 AM, Clebert wrote: My wife voted for reactive. Does it count? Lol Sent from my iPad On Apr 17, 2015, at 09:39, James Carman

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ ActiveMQ's next generation

Inline. Hadrian On 04/01/2015 06:47 AM, oliverd wrote: Hi, as a user of ActiveMQ running it productively I can only stress the importance of introducing a new scalable broker core. Challenges like cloud, IoT cry for scalability and that's where other brokers like RabbitMQ create a lot of

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ ActiveMQ's next generation

See Guillaume, it is precisely this attitude that created the problem in the first place. One of the first things developers learn in the incubator is that it's not their project any longer, it's an ASF project. And the ASF has some very clear values, backed by years of experience. One of

Re: ActiveMQ 6 Logging

Actually I did try activemq6 too. It looks like it mandates java8, is that correct? I know of large deployments that still use java6 with an extended support contract from Oracle, btw. Cheers, Hadrian On 04/06/2015 03:58 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote: As I am digging into the HornetQ/ActiveMQ 6

Re: ApacheCon 2015

I will be there Sun - Wed. If anybody wants to have a chat and don't bump into me, or don't know how I look like, ask somebody at the ASF booth. Bruce, looking forward to see you again! Cheers, Hadrian On 04/04/2015 02:26 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote: Who is planning to attend ApacheCon later this

Re: ApacheCon 2015

. On Apr 4, 2015, at 14:42, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: I will be there Sun - Wed. If anybody wants to have a chat and don't bump into me, or don't know how I look like, ask somebody at the ASF booth. Bruce, looking forward to see you again! Cheers, Hadrian On 04/04/2015 02:26 PM

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pluggable Brokers...

+1. The blocking today it merely an implementation detail than can be addressed. Hadrian On 03/30/2015 09:23 AM, James Carman wrote: All, With all the talk over the last week or so regarding the Broker Wars, especially after reading Rob Davies' email about how the broker has been tweaked

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ ActiveMQ's next generation

Well, Jeff actually gave you the typical ASF definition of community, but here's a more authoritative version [1] (Community section). There are other authoritative sources I could point to if necessary. Hadrian [1] https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ ActiveMQ's next generation

start calling foul? go back and read the history. On 27 Mar 2015, at 15:28, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: Everything you mentioned, all the code changes e.g. merge good stuff from 5.x into the code donation, can very well be done in the incubator. The discussion I am trying to have

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ ActiveMQ's next generation

Everything you mentioned, all the code changes e.g. merge good stuff from 5.x into the code donation, can very well be done in the incubator. The discussion I am trying to have is about the *community*, core value of the Apache Way. The sooner that is understood the better. Hadrian On

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ ActiveMQ's next generation

Thanks Hiram, That was exactly my recommendation a few days back, right? I had the same view as Dan. Reduce the confusion, give the project time to mature, give the new developers time to get a better understanding of the ASF, once there is enough convergence we'll decide on something.

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ ActiveMQ's next generation

. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: Really Jon? How will that make more work for everyone? Who is everyone. Hadrian On 03/27/2015 02:30 PM, Jon Anstey wrote: If you read the initial thread for the code grant, the whole point was to NOT have 2 brokers

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ ActiveMQ's next generation

And? On 03/27/2015 02:36 PM, Jon Anstey wrote: Then we are back to having 2 brokers communities. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:03 PM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: How does it make more work for everyone? On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Jon Anstey jans...@gmail.com wrote: If

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ ActiveMQ's next generation

David, I strongly encourage you to become the Champion for HornetQ, lead it through incubation, pull whatever pleases you from ActiveMQ, as little or as much as you want and prove your point. Forget the antiquated ActiveMQ. It pains me that after all this talk you still dodge the community

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ ActiveMQ's next generation

If by that you mean those from RH (who are the overwhelming majority here), yes, I understand, that's possible. Hadrian On 03/27/2015 02:43 PM, Jon Anstey wrote: All the devs writing/maintaining the code? On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: Really

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ ActiveMQ's next generation

Should they invest in the current ActiveMQ that has no future plans or jump to a competitor? What’s your point? Actually, yes, there are organizations that expand their activemq operations based on the current code base. Not sure about new users. I heard of users who started to use

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ ActiveMQ's next generation

at this and will provide some guidance. Personally, I don't think I have much to add. Cheers, Hadrian On 03/26/2015 03:10 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: On Mar 26, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest, David, can very well

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ ActiveMQ's next generation

Perfect, but that was not the initial promise. What you suggest, David, can very well happen in the incubator. The way it's done right now is actually a very hostile takeover. Hadrian On 03/26/2015 01:12 PM, David Jencks wrote: I'm baffled. I have (unfortunately, wish I had more time) very

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ ActiveMQ's next generation

. Is someone preventing you from developing some code here that you want? I completely agree with Dan. thanks david jencks On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: I don't buy the premise. I could argue that the promise of Apollo hurt the evolution of activemq 5, because

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ ActiveMQ's next generation

Yes it is absolutely reasonable and possible to have 2 competing brokers. Competition is good for users. And this is my recommendation at this point. Hadrian On 03/26/2015 01:22 PM, dlalaina wrote: Hello guys, I totally agree with last 2 David posts. I'm responsible for the messaging and

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ ActiveMQ's next generation

This is not a view shared by everybody. The way I read Chris' mail is that hornetq should have actually started in the incubator and build a community as the next best messaging solution. If hornetq succeeds, it is possible that some (or all) from the activemq community will jump boat. Who

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ ActiveMQ's next generation

in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by having a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind. On 25 Mar 2015 18:27, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: This is not a view shared by everybody. The way I

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ ActiveMQ's next generation

of it could be incorporated into ActiveMQ? I'm not sure this had happened yet. Rob On 25 Mar 2015, at 20:53, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: Surely, calling it HornetQ (or whatever name the community chooses) and building the community in the incubator does not prevent anything you

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ ActiveMQ's next generation

Hi Chris, There was a code donation that completed last year. It started on 07/08/2014 (in a thread named: Possible HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ) and completed in Oct. HornetQ was a long time project and community of RedHat. The idea, the way I understood it at the time, was to take

Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ ActiveMQ's next generation

Completely agree, thanks Rob. The proposal is use a name for the hornetq subproject that avoids confusion and doesn't use a version number. Hornetq *may* become the next activemq 6 (or 7, or whatever the case) once it builds a strong, self sustained community. Like in the Apollo case, the

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

moving forward with getting an initial release of the HornetQ code donation out there for people to use and evaluate. I'll follow up with a new RC based on 6.0.0.M# versioning. On 24/03/15 12:07, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: Hi David, I actually fully agree with your statement in principle. Personally

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

had time to actually contribute rather than just argue…. david jencks On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: Now here lies the problem. I agree that it captures the intent well. That also creates an expectation from the users and sort of a promise from

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

. Then you'll have my full support. WDYT? Hadrian On 03/24/2015 10:28 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote: On 24/03/15 13:26, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: That's my point :). How do you define general consensus? By general consensus, I meant that the number of people who replied in favour of milestone releases

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

with HornetQ? On 24/03/15 14:59, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: Clearly some mentoring is badly needed :(. Here's my suggestion then, let's see how you like it. Ask the ActiveMQ pmc to change the name from activemq6 to something else. Prove that you can build a community around the project independent

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

should take this in a separate [discuss] thread. And btw, these kind of discussions clarify things and are in general a good thing for the community. Hadrian On 03/24/2015 12:18 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: On Mar 24, 2015, at 12:12 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: Precisely. That's what

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

That's what I thought too. And if I recall correctly I gave a binding +1 vote back then. Turns out that the reality is different than I understood it. I does feel, like James said, 'bait and switch'. Is it? Hadrian On 03/24/2015 12:10 PM, artnaseef wrote: Thinking about the issue of

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

David, It seems to me that the message does not come across as intended. I don't see why releasing hornet as activemq-hornet as opposed to activemq-6.x would doom activemq. I totally get your point and agree with it, except the part where amq is gonna die. Nobody scared apollo, nobody is

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

Hiram, I believe you, but this has nothing to do with the ability of building a community and hence a sustainable project. Apollo 3 years ago (more?) was probably a technically superior option. It has nothing to do with resistance to change. A business running ActiveMQ in production has

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

But Apollo didn't succeed, did it? And it was advertised the same way as activemq6 and the future of activemq. Now it seems that you are convinced that where Apollo failed to attract a community HornetQ will succeed. And bare in mind that I am not talking at all about technical merits. Apollo

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

such a drastic change is needed. Not the, 'will it succeed' :) On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: But Apollo didn't succeed, did it? And it was advertised the same way as activemq6 and the future of activemq. Now it seems that you are convinced that where

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

Now here lies the problem. I agree that it captures the intent well. That also creates an expectation from the users and sort of a promise from the activemq pmc, amplified by the vendors' marketing (well, exactly one in this case). The same promise has been made with apollo. I am less

Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.0 required Java 8?

+1 Hadrian On 03/19/2015 06:04 PM, Rob Davies wrote: At some point, it could well make sense to call the HornetQ release ActiveMQ 6 - but not yet. This has caused a lot of confusion- it should be called something else ?? On 19 Mar 2015, at 19:40, Kevin Burton bur...@spinn3r.com wrote:

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

That is very true. -1 as well. Hadrian On 03/19/2015 08:57 PM, artnaseef wrote: I will continue to look at this as I can find time. One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq- for the prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the followin: *

Re: ActiveMQ DSLs

I will add another couple of thoughts on this topic. I totally get that, and I agree. My thinking though is that outside testing, where yes, it could be very convenient, I doubt it will find much use in production. The main reason is that one would very likely have to change code in order to

Re: ActiveMQ DSLs

Good job, but I don't think it's a good idea. Sure, interesting syntactic sugar, but what problem does it solve? Who would use it? Json or YAML would be way more interesting imho. Hadrian On 03/13/2015 12:13 PM, Jakub Korab wrote: Hi All, In working on a separate project, I found the need

Re: activemq git commit: Add MERIT.txt and give thanks to Mark Frazier for his contribution.

-1. Please remove. Does not belong in the code repository. I agree that credit should be given, but imo this is not the way. Hadrian On 03/09/2015 01:52 PM, artnas...@apache.org wrote: Repository: activemq Updated Branches: refs/heads/master e25a6aa8a - b9b566918 Add MERIT.txt and give

Re: activemq git commit: Add MERIT.txt and give thanks to Mark Frazier for his contribution.

not to have MERIT.txt in the source code? Art On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com mailto:hzbar...@gmail.com wrote: -1. Please remove. Does not belong in the code repository. I agree that credit should be given, but imo this is not the way. Hadrian On 03

Re: activemq git commit: Add MERIT.txt and give thanks to Mark Frazier for his contribution.

Did you consider other solutions? Like `git commit --allow-empty`, for instance? Hadrian On 03/09/2015 03:55 PM, artnaseef wrote: Let me clarify here. The MERIT.txt file is a way to give credit to someone when that credit was missed earlier. Ideally, credit is given through the original

[jira] [Assigned] (AMQ-5554) Proper support for the blueprint namespace in activemq-blueprint

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5554?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Hadrian Zbarcea reassigned AMQ-5554: Assignee: Daniel Kulp (was: Jean-Baptiste Onofré) Proper support for the blueprint

[jira] [Issue Comment Deleted] (AMQ-5554) Proper support for the blueprint namespace in activemq-blueprint

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5554?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Hadrian Zbarcea updated AMQ-5554: - Comment: was deleted (was: Thanks you for email. I will be out of the office from 3/5/2015

[jira] [Resolved] (AMQ-5554) Proper support for the blueprint namespace in activemq-blueprint

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5554?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Hadrian Zbarcea resolved AMQ-5554. -- Resolution: Fixed Fix Version/s: 5.11.2 5.10.3 This is fixed

[jira] [Updated] (AMQ-5554) Proper support for the blueprint namespace in activemq-blueprint

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5554?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Hadrian Zbarcea updated AMQ-5554: - Affects Version/s: 5.10.0 Proper support for the blueprint namespace in activemq-blueprint

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.1

+1 (binding) Looks good. Sigs, legal, build from source. It's a bummer that we didn't look at details like copyright notices. Some are badly out of date. Maybe right after the release. Cheers, Hadrian On 02/13/2015 01:28 PM, artnaseef wrote: The release candidate for the activemq 5.11.1

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ActiveMQ 5.10.2

+1 (binding) Same comments from the 5.11.1 release apply. Hadrian On 02/13/2015 02:18 PM, artnaseef wrote: The release candidate for the activemq 5.10.2 release is now built and ready for a vote. This release comes with 2 bug fixes, including the one for AMQ-5564 which addresses a potential

Re: [DISCUSS] 5.10.2 release

Done, thanks Dejan, Hadrian On 02/12/2015 06:15 AM, Dejan Bosanac wrote: Hi Art, please include the following commit in the 5.10.2 release https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq.git;a=commit;h=00921f22ff9a8792d7663ef8fadd4823402a6324 Regards -- Dejan Bosanac

Re: [DICUSS] 5.11.1 patch release

I went through the fixes on master and backported the ones (merged) back to activemq-5.11.x. I don't think I missed anything but a second pair of eyes would be extremely appreciated. A couple of patches were already back merged. I think both 5.10.x and 5.11.x are ready for patch releases.

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >