activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Fri, 27 Mar 2015 16:57:00 GMT
If that is true, that's one more reason to grow the project in the 
incubator. You are basically confirming yet again, that we have a RH 
community taking over the ActiveMQ community.

That large community you mention should go through the incubation 
process and getting used to the Apache Way in the incubator, not the 
ActiveMQ pmc which is already heavily biased towards the same vendor. In 
my strong opinion, echoed by others, this will help the activemq 
community. And it's not only bringing committers in the PMC, it's also 
bringing in many contributors (for a significant number of years) as 
committers.

And by the way, initially I was quite neutral. It is this thread that 
convinced me that the two communities should evolve separately.

Hadrian



On 03/27/2015 12:15 PM, Rob Davies wrote:
> This incubator line is a red herring. HornetQ wanted to consolidate communities together
- they didn't need more committers - their community ( in the Apache sense of the word) was
already bigger than ActiveMQ. What I don't understand is that you actually agreed to this
- and backed a proposal made by someone not from Red Hat to put into a repo called ActiveMQ
6 - and  now you start calling foul? go back and read the history.
>
>
>
>> On 27 Mar 2015, at 15:28, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Everything you mentioned, all the code changes e.g. "merge good stuff from 5.x into
the code donation",  can very well be done in the incubator. The discussion I am trying to
have is about the *community*, core value of the "Apache Way". The sooner that is understood
the better.
>>
>> Hadrian
>>
>>> On 03/27/2015 10:52 AM, Andy Taylor wrote:
>>> There has been a lot said about the intent of the HornetQ donation so
>>> let me just clear up a few things.
>>>
>>> Regarding the naming, the idea to use ActiveMQ6 for the repo name came
>>> from this discussion thread:
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html.
>>> The original idea was to reuse the Apollo name but then consensus
>>> emerged around activemq-6. The idea to use version 6.0.0 followed from
>>> the repo name. Maybe 10.0.0-M1 would have been a better choice to signal
>>> a large change and leave room for 5.x to grow.
>>>
>>> Since agreement was made to accept the donation [1] [2], lots of work
>>> has been done to get ready for an initial release, this involved
>>> rebranding, removing all CatX dependencies and a general clean up.
>>>
>>> The intent is to merge the good stuff of 5.x with the code donation and
>>> support migration. There has been some good progress here. We have
>>> preliminary Openwire support for backward compatibility with 5.x clients
>>> and work has started to address some of the feature gaps, e.g., adding
>>> auto creation of destinations and reusing the ActiveMQ Filter code.
>>> There’s obviously more work to do but this is just the initial release
>>> that completes the IP clearance process. Going forward, I’d like to see
>>> us collectively develop a feature backlog for subsequent milestone
>>> releases. At some point in the future, the community might decide that
>>> the new core becomes the primary deliverable from the project but that
>>> should happen organically with no rush.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Accept-hornetq-code-grant-and-active-committers-td4685833.html
>>> [2]
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/RESULT-VOTE-Accept-hornetq-code-grant-and-active-committers-td4686006.html
>>>

Mime
View raw message