activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Taylor <andy.tayl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Date Tue, 24 Mar 2015 10:09:52 GMT
We have already started adapting code from ActiveMQ 5, the
activemq-selector module for instance was taken straight from ActiveMQ 5
and the Openwire protocol is also supported. I for one will be pro
active in building the community and hope that in the future we receive
contributions from many and varied members of the community. Its a shame
your so busy David :).

Andy Taylor

On 24/03/15 02:43, David Jencks wrote:
> It seems to me that a different name would mean a different project.  IIUC AMQ accepted
the code so not having it turn into amq-xxx seems a bit odd to me.
> 
> What is stopping all the non-jboss-employees (yes, showing my age here) from enthusiastically
digging into the code and adapting from amq 5 or implementing anew all the missing bits? 
My limited understanding is that the amq 5 broker sort of reached a dead end and needed a
rewrite rather than incremental improvement, first Apollo tried to do it in Scala which not
enough people understood, and now there's a new bunch of java code to look at. 
> 
> It seems to me that one of the roles of the preexisting committers is to help the new
ones learn about apache.  What better way than by pitching in and working on the code together?
> 
> wishing I had time to actually contribute rather than just argue….
> david jencks
> 
> On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@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 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 concerned with the rewrite. To me that is not an issue. If smaller or larger
parts are rewritten but maintain (reasonable) feature parity, it is an evolution of the same
project.
>>
>> I am however more concerned with the ability of the activemq6 podling/subproject
to build a diverse community. So far I don't see encouraging signs. My fear is that the result
will be alienation of the more diverse activemq 5.x community (still less diverse than it
should be) and turn activemq into a one company show.
>>
>> So far it looks it looks to me that the perception card was played, with the choice
of name. It *sounds* like activemq6 the evolution of activemq. How will the current pmc ensure
that this is really gonna be the case? (fwiw, I do get questions about the relationship between
amq6 and 5 already, and for the life of me I don't know how to answer).
>>
>> Choosing a different name, as I think Rob suggested too, would have made this a moot
point.
>>
>> My $0.02,
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03/23/2015 10:07 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
>>> +1 to the -M1 naming, I think that captures intent perfectly.
>>>
>>> On 23 March 2015 at 10:09, Andy Taylor <andy.tayls67@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> So I think the consensus is to go with ActiveMQ 6.0.0-M1 so we will go
>>>> ahead and cut a new RC in the next day or so. We will also add some
>>>> content the website so users are clear that currently there isn't
>>>> feature parity between ActiveMQ 5 and ActiveMQ 6. We will then raise
>>>> JIRA to map out a migration path post release.
>>>>
>>>> On 20/03/15 20:40, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:25 PM, artnaseef <art@artnaseef.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> Please help me to understand how this would go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We would use 6.0.0-M1, 6.0.0-M2, etc until when?  Until we are ready
to
>>>>>> declare that 6.0.0 is a replacement for 5.x?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After that, then we simply drop the -M# (i.e. release the first 6.0.0)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah.. That's exactly how I see it.
>>>>>
>>>>
> 


Mime
View raw message