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 18:36:58 GMT
Really Jon?

How will that "make more work for everyone"? Who is everyone.

Hadrian

On 03/27/2015 02:30 PM, Jon Anstey wrote:
> If you read the initial thread for the code grant, the whole point was to
> NOT have 2 brokers & communities; it was to work together as one.
>
> "There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two brokers today and
> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities for us to
> join
> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend our time
> duplicating efforts on both brokers."
>
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html
>
> IMO putting this new broker in the incubator is a bad idea and will just
> make more work for everyone...
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm with Hadrian on this one.  Incubation seems like the proper route
>> for this code, to me.  HornetQ already has a well-established
>> community and apparently a kick-ass code base.  One might wonder why
>> HornetQ wants to come here in the first place if everything is so
>> unicorns and rainbows.  Anyway, if there are features of AMQ that
>> HornetQ (or whatever name it decides to take on here at the ASF) wants
>> from AMQ, it can easily integrate them as they see fit, without the
>> burden of trying to maintain backward compatibility and develop a
>> smooth migration path.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
>>> points.  At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
>>> project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
>>> is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.
>>>
>>> So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
>>> a bad idea.  A this point I think the code donation should follow the
>>> path the apollo took and switch to a code name.  It should continue to
>>> do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
>>> users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
>>> become.
>>>
>>> We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
>>> the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rbowen@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>>>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
>>>> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
>>>> heard.)
>>>>
>>>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>
>>>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>>>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>>>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ.  So I think we are ok from a TM
>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but the
>>>> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
>> project,
>>>> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version.
>> This
>>>> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the
>> project
>>>> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the
>>>> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious
>> accusation.
>>>>
>>>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased
>> on
>>>> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
>> affiliation -
>>>> an even more serious accusation.
>>>>
>>>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
>> imported
>>>> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue
>> of a
>>>> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>>>>
>>>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
>>>> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel that
>>>> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>>>>
>>>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
>>>> suggested.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it
>> the
>>>> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see
>> that
>>>> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code
>> be
>>>> taken to the incubator.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Hiram Chirino
>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message