Re: [PROPOSAL] Non-canonical alignment for shared and replicated state terminology

Hi Etienne Thanks for the reminder. I will check to move forward, probably one 5.17 RC1 will be out. Regards JB > Le 12 août 2021 à 22:25, Hossack, Etienne a > écrit : > >  Hey folks, reminder this proposal is still out there and could use some > love :) > > In case it was ambiguous

Re: [PROPOSAL] Non-canonical alignment for shared and replicated state terminology

Hey folks, reminder this proposal is still out there and could use some love :) In case it was ambiguous from my last email: +1 in favour Étienne Hossack Software Development Engineer, Amazon MQ email: ehoss...@amazon.com

Re: [PROPOSAL] Non-canonical alignment for shared and replicated state terminology

Hi Étienne- > On Jul 16, 2021, at 12:46 PM, Hossack, Etienne > wrote: > > Thanks for the proposal Matt. > > I am in favour of the [Scope][Benefits][Rationale] sections of your proposal. > They are clear. > > I am pretty sure I’m in favour of the [Proposal] section, so assuming my >

Re: [PROPOSAL] Non-canonical alignment for shared and replicated state terminology

Thanks for the proposal Matt. I am in favour of the [Scope][Benefits][Rationale] sections of your proposal. They are clear. I am pretty sure I’m in favour of the [Proposal] section, so assuming my understanding is correct, and the voice of a humble community member is helpful, it's +1 at

Re: [PROPOSAL] Non-canonical alignment for shared and replicated state terminology

Hi Matt, thanks for the proposal. Personally, I'm still skeptical about this kind of changes for "technical wording". If we really want to change, I think active/passive is the most accurate for kahadb/store HA, both runtime mode and status. Anyway, in ActiveMQ, we don't have concrete

[PROPOSAL] Non-canonical alignment for shared and replicated state terminology

[Abstract] ActiveMQ 5 and Artemis are both re-working legacy terminology to better describe function and move away from problematic language for shared storage and replication terminology indicators. [Background] JIRA discussion: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514