My latest theory is that I'm reading messages in 'threaded' view, and
others in timeline.. probably half the problem.. lol
On 12/7/17 11:38 AM, artnaseef wrote:
I don't know about you guys - but I often feel like I'm arguing with myself
in an echo chamber when trying to find a way to move thes
I don't know about you guys - but I often feel like I'm arguing with myself
in an echo chamber when trying to find a way to move these discussions
forward.
:-)
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
Matt Pavlovich-2 wrote
>> "When it's ready, Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6"
>>
>> I think there is consensus forming around that.
> Agree. For those voting -1 on the "when its ready.." let's be
> constructive. Provide path forward.
We did. Read the thread.
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.
On 12/7/17 5:28 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
I don't agree with the premise of this discussion at all. It seems to be
born out of a your replies to your self in an echo chamber.
Agree
What are the adverse consequences in providing a robust migration path for
5.x users to activemq 6 *within* the Acti
I'm 0 on this. Hadrian makes a very valid point and it opens up some
interesting thoughts.
I'm +1 for Artemis becoming a top level project because yes, based on the
infighting, etc, it may be best that it forms its own living/breathing
community. I am personally exhausted from the fighting. If
-1. I'm not even going to add weight to this discussion by giving a
reason. I find the thread a ridiculous reaction to the vote email, in it
there are more inaccurate claims of the opinions of members of the
community.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
> I don't agree with the
I don't agree with the premise of this discussion at all. It seems to be
born out of a your replies to your self in an echo chamber.
What are the adverse consequences in providing a robust migration path for
5.x users to activemq 6 *within* the ActiveMQ project?
The preceding vote did not have an
I think having a divorce should be the last thing / option.
Maybe some counselling first ( Bruce is doing a good job here I think), I'm
sure as a community it can be worked out, it be a shame for such a break up.
Sent from my iPad
> On 7 Dec 2017, at 04:20, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>
> Cleb
Clebert, I'd suggest you don't go there.
I do not imply, I state (facts or opinions). I do not represent other
people's opinion, just my own. I am stating that Artemis is the
evolution of the HornetQ donation to the ASF by RH. ActiveMQ has
completely different origins.
As such, I was referri
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea 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.
You are
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. It's more like some not buying into the idea of
ActiveMQ being switched
No, no incubation. Just graduates as TLP. There would be a discussion to
choose the new PMC and nominated chair. Resolution gets submitted to the
board which ratifies it at the board meeting and... that's it. Freedom.
I have a hunch that all the -1s would be in favor of such a proposal.
Proble
The board receives agenda items to create a new TLP. I'm not sure that
"graduation" is the right term, but more effectively "there is now a
project, which will have resources transferred to it from the ActiveMQ
project."
Personally, while I'm usually the biggest one pushing for open and honest
co
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 wrote:
> Since Artemis has a kernel of developers had a few releases, and hard-core
> Artemis believers w
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 gra
15 matches
Mail list logo
