Thanks Etienne.
In any case, such kind of change is breaking change for the users.
Fortunately, in ActiveMQ, we mostly have to update the document: the activemq
xml doesn’t contain lot of problematic wording.
Regards
JB
> Le 8 juil. 2021 à 21:33, Hossack, Etienne a
> écrit :
>
> Hi Ri
Hi Rich,
I can’t speak for the PMC and in particular for the progress made on Artemis,
but for 5.X I can offer the following:
* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514 was created to address the
terminology used within ActiveMQ
* The mainline branch for both repositories is now “
Hi, folks,
Back in November I sent email to this list [1] about usage of words such as
master, slave, blacklist, etc, in the Activemq project. My impression is that,
since that time, you have made considerable progress on those changes. I was
wondering if you could tell me where we are in this?
Yes, that’s possible. I just mentioned that we need a create ticket to INFRA
for that.
Regards
JB
> Le 12 nov. 2020 à 20:22, Clebert Suconic a écrit :
>
> We should probably switch the dev from master to main on our repos.
>
> and have master mirroring main for some time allowing folks to upd
We should probably switch the dev from master to main on our repos.
and have master mirroring main for some time allowing folks to update
their scripts... (like I have a few private CI machines.. I bet other
folks will have similar things).
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:51 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre
It’s easy, but we have to ask to infra (we can’t delete the "old" master branch
ourselves once "main" is there).
Regards
JB
> Le 12 nov. 2020 à 16:33, Clebert Suconic a écrit :
>
> one easy change is the name of our main branch...
>
> github has switched to use main for any new repository cre
one easy change is the name of our main branch...
github has switched to use main for any new repository created instead
of master.
Would we need Infra to make that change?
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:48 PM Clebert Suconic
wrote:
>
> I remember that thread..
>
>
> but I think in most cases primar
I remember that thread..
but I think in most cases primary / backup makes more sense...
But I don't mind which term we choose TBH... IMO we should just stick
to primary / backup, but if somewhere specifically leader / follower
makes more sense. .why not?
I would leave it at the discression o
There was already another thread on this topic along with a Jira:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Draft-proposal-for-terminology-change-td4758351.html
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
New terms were already somewhat decided in that thread as primary/backup
doesn't make
Hi,
I agree with the terms (I think we have kind of consensus).
I will start the change on ActiveMQ side (as I’m working on new releases and
updates).
Regards
JB
> Le 10 nov. 2020 à 17:26, Clebert Suconic a écrit :
>
> What about this... lets propose the following changes:
>
> - master sho
What about this... lets propose the following changes:
- master should become primary (we could refer to it as primary server in docs)
- slave should become backup (same way, we could refer to it as backup
server in docs)
- whitelist: allowlist
- blacklist: denylist
TBH: master and slave are the
On 2020/11/05 17:34:25, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> *My* particular issue around this was not knowing what to do with
> configuration parameters and APIs.
>
> If we simply remove those, older clients, older configs would not work any
> longer.
>
> Is deprecation here a valid approach? Is there
:
dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: ActiveMQ and problematic language *My*
particular issue around this was not knowing what to do withconfiguration
parameters and APIs.If we simply remove those, older clients, older configs
would not work anylonger.Is deprecation here a valid approach? Is
*My* particular issue around this was not knowing what to do with
configuration parameters and APIs.
If we simply remove those, older clients, older configs would not work any
longer.
Is deprecation here a valid approach? Is there consensus around it ?
On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 11:15 AM Rich Bowen
Hi, ActiveMQ friends,
As you may have heard, Red Hat recently embarked on a company-wide effort to
remove problematic/unwelcoming language from code, documentation, and web
presences, both upstream and downstream, related to projects that we care
about, and which form critical parts of our tech
15 matches
Mail list logo
