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 18:39:18 GMT
And?

On 03/27/2015 02:36 PM, Jon Anstey wrote:
> Then we are back to having 2 brokers & communities.
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:03 PM, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com>
> wrote:
>
>> How does it make more work for "everyone"?
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Jon Anstey <janstey@gmail.com> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jon
>>> ---------------
>>> Red Hat, Inc.
>>> Email: janstey@redhat.com
>>> Web: http://redhat.com
>>> Twitter: jon_anstey
>>> Blog: http://janstey.blogspot.com
>>> Author of Camel in Action: http://manning.com/ibsen
>>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message