activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Baptiste Onofré>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Tue, 31 Mar 2015 09:11:42 GMT
I second Hadrian there.


On 03/27/2015 05:57 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
> 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 <> 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:
>>>> 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]
>>>> [2]

Jean-Baptiste Onofré
Talend -

View raw message