activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jamie G." <jamie.goody...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:42:03 GMT
Good question, how is that more work for everyone? More choices, sure.

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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