activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: AMQP client library collaboration
Date Fri, 11 Jun 2010 22:07:40 GMT

On Jun 10, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Robert Godfrey <rob.j.godfrey@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10 June 2010 19:18, Bruce Snyder <bruce.snyder@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Marnie McCormack
>>> <marnie.mccormack@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Bruce,
>>>> Sounds a really interesting idea, and potentially a good combination of
>>>> product/knowledge and people for a core AMQP 1.0 implementation.
>>>> 
>>>> Can I ask why not use the ASF as we do for contribution to the Qpid/ActiveMQ
>>>> code base now, is there a reason why people won't want to contribute the
>>>> code to the ASF ?
>>>> 
>>>> If we're not using the ASF, then it'd be best to agree the license that the
>>>> code'll be under right from the start I think ?
>>> 
>>> Since the ASF doesn't provide infrastructure yet for generic project
>>> hosting, we would need to host the project either under the ActiveMQ
>>> project or the Qpid project and that's not really appropriate for
>>> something that is meant to be completely separate from those two.
>>> Also, we want to encourage non-ASF folks to participate more easily.
>>> This is what lead Rafi and I just loosely agree that Github would be
>>> more appropriate (especially git makes it so easy to contribute and
>>> fork). But the lack of a project mailing list is one problem with
>>> Github. But as Hiram pointed out in his reply, perhaps Github + Google
>>> Groups = the correct combination.
>> 
>> Yeah - I'm very happy with that combination - and agree that is
>> probably the best approach
>> 
>> If, down the road, we think it should become an Apache Project (via
>> the incubator) we can go down that road...
>> 
>> Obviously in that case we'd want to keep track of contributors as well
>> as using the ASL
> 
> OK, so the two options for creating the project that are currently on
> the table are:
> 
> 1) Github + Google Groups
> 
> 2) Apache Incubator
> 
> My initial bias would be toward #1 simply because I prefer git over
> svn. But as I think about, we should not overlook the Incubator.
> 
> <devil's-advocate>
> If we intend to eventually bring the project back to the ASF, why not
> just start a new project in the Incubator now? We can put together a
> proposal that includes all the folks who want to be involved and just
> be very inclusive about voting in new folks. After all, it's really up
> to the project PMC about how high we set the bar for committership and
> PMC membership. The PMC runs the project using the Apache Way and is
> as inclusive as it wants to be.
> </devil's-advocate>
> 
> As I type out my thoughts on this, I am liking this option more and
> more. But my observations of the Incubator over the last several years
> are definitely clouded by the problems it has had.
> 
> Thoughts, opinions?

I think you are greatly overestimating the problems an incubator project that has several
experienced apache committers actively involved would face graduating.  I also think you are
underestimating the utility to potential users of having paid attention to and documented
IP issues, which seems to me the main annoyance working at apache brings.  

thanks
david jencks

> 
> Bruce
> -- 
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
> 
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder


Mime
View raw message