activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jamie G." <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Date Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:02:10 GMT
Then it sounds like calling it org.apache.activemq.hornetq would have
made the most sense here.

Easy, straightforward naming. No one gets confused.

When Servicemix Kernel went to Apache Felix we rebranded as Apache
Felix Karaf. The transition seemed to make sense to all users. We kept
the name when the project went top level. If the virgo project was to
be donated to Karaf, I'd suspect we'd call it org.apache.karaf.virgo
instead of Karaf 5.0.

My 2 cents CAD,

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Martyn Taylor <> wrote:
> Surely that is exactly where we have come from with HornetQ?
> On 24/03/15 14:59, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>> Clearly some mentoring is badly needed :(.
>> Here's my suggestion then, let's see how you like it. Ask the ActiveMQ pmc
>> to change the name from activemq6 to something else. Prove that you can
>> build a community around the project independent of the perception to be an
>> upgrade of activemq.
>> Then you'll have my full support. WDYT?
>> Hadrian
>> On 03/24/2015 10:28 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>> On 24/03/15 13:26, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>> That's my point :). How do you define general consensus?
>>> By general consensus, I meant that the number of people who replied in
>>> favour of milestone releases is greater than (n / 2).
>>>> This very much looks like HornetQ taking over ActiveMQ. It very much
>>>> looks to me like two different groups doing their own thing
>>>> independently on the same mailing list.
>>> I am not sure how you have come to that conclusion.  I am merely
>>> proposing a vote on an RC using the milestone versioning as proposed by
>>> a member of the community.
>>>> More I have to think about it, more uneasy I feel. One would have
>>>> expected to see some activemq6/hornetq presence at apachecon for
>>>> instance. I don't see any efforts to build a community besides this
>>>> 'evolution' from activemq5. Are there breakout sessions planned at the
>>>> redhat summit? How is the community going to grow?
>>> How does any open source community grow?  We will promote the project
>>> and invite the existing ActiveMQ community and beyond to try it out, get
>>> involved, raise JIRAs, request features and all the goodness that open
>>> source brings.
>>>> I am totally confused. You inform us that you will "follow up with a
>>>> new RC based on the 6.0.0.M# versioning". Ok, and then what?
>>> There is no need for confusion.  Hopefully we will release 6.0.0.M1, and
>>> we will have something concrete to discuss and for the community to try
>>> out. We can incrementally address migration concerns as they arise in
>>> subsequent milestones.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Hadrian
>>>> On 03/24/2015 08:59 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>>>> I realise there is still some anxiety, but the general consensus seems
>>>>> to be to move forward with the ActiveMQ 6.0.0.M#. I'd like to continue
>>>>> moving forward with getting an initial release of the HornetQ code
>>>>> donation out there for people to use and evaluate. I'll follow up with
>>>>> a
>>>>> new RC based on 6.0.0.M# versioning.
>>>>> On 24/03/15 12:07, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>> I actually fully agree with your statement in principle. Personally,
>>>>>> would be all for it, we did the same kind of rewrite in Camel when
>>>>>> moved from 1.x to 2.0, and it was a long and painful process. Speaking
>>>>>> of which there were talks about a Camel 3.0 for at least 3 years
>>>>>> I am quite skeptical of.
>>>>>> In this case, hornetq is actually a completely different product,
>>>>>> voted into the community by a vendor who has the vast majority of
>>>>>> pmc votes. Even that would not matter that much if the rest of the
>>>>>> community would buy into the vision of hornetq morphing into the
>>>>>> amq, more or less a drop in replacement as others stated in the
>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>> Your analogy with Apollo is exactly what I mean. As much as I like
>>>>>> elegance of scala I did not buy into its ability to catalyse a
>>>>>> community. If enough users jump off the activemq 5.x wagon and its
>>>>>> successor doesn't get enough steam, then activemq would reach a "dead
>>>>>> end".
>>>>>> I don't know what the future would bring. And honestly, I don't know
>>>>>> what the best choice is. Based on my previous experience, I choose
>>>>>> err on the conservative side, yet I wish for the best.
>>>>>> The onus is on the new podling to build a community. The fact that
>>>>>> was adopted by the activemq project doesn't mean that it must use
>>>>>> same name, it means that the activemq pmc took on the duty of
>>>>>> mentoring the new committers (past example, among others: smx kernel
>>>>>> moving to felix and then going tlp).
>>>>>> Speaking of mentoring, it is not something that can be imposed.
>>>>>> Personally, I have never been asked anything by new committers in
>>>>>> activemq community. I do however mentor other communities. Tinkerpop
>>>>>> is such an example, and man, it's a joy, the project is growing well
>>>>>> and the technology is awesome. There are other examples where it
>>>>>> doesn't work so well.
>>>>>> Bottom line, activemq6 must build a community. With a different name
>>>>>> it could prove that it's capable of doing it on its own. This way
>>>>>> stealing from the activemq5 community. That's fine, but then address
>>>>>> its needs and make the users happy: seamless migration, near drop
>>>>>> replacement.
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>> On 03/23/2015 10:43 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>> It seems to me that a different name would mean a different project.
>>>>>>> IIUC AMQ accepted the code so not having it turn into amq-xxx
seems a
>>>>>>> bit odd to me.
>>>>>>> What is stopping all the non-jboss-employees (yes, showing my
>>>>>>> here) from enthusiastically digging into the code and adapting
>>>>>>> amq 5 or implementing anew all the missing bits? My limited
>>>>>>> understanding is that the amq 5 broker sort of reached a dead
end and
>>>>>>> needed a rewrite rather than incremental improvement, first Apollo
>>>>>>> tried to do it in Scala which not enough people understood, and
>>>>>>> there's a new bunch of java code to look at.
>>>>>>> It seems to me that one of the roles of the preexisting committers
>>>>>>> to help the new ones learn about apache.  What better way than
>>>>>>> pitching in and working on the code together?
>>>>>>> wishing I had time to actually contribute rather than just argue….
>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Now here lies the problem.
>>>>>>>> I agree that it captures the intent well. That also creates
>>>>>>>> expectation from the users and sort of a promise from the
>>>>>>>> pmc, amplified by the vendors' marketing (well, exactly one
in this
>>>>>>>> case). The same promise has been made with apollo.
>>>>>>>> I am less concerned with the rewrite. To me that is not an
issue. If
>>>>>>>> smaller or larger parts are rewritten but maintain (reasonable)
>>>>>>>> feature parity, it is an evolution of the same project.
>>>>>>>> I am however more concerned with the ability of the activemq6
>>>>>>>> podling/subproject to build a diverse community. So far I
don't see
>>>>>>>> encouraging signs. My fear is that the result will be alienation
>>>>>>>> the more diverse activemq 5.x community (still less diverse
than it
>>>>>>>> should be) and turn activemq into a one company show.
>>>>>>>> So far it looks it looks to me that the perception card was
>>>>>>>> with the choice of name. It *sounds* like activemq6 the evolution
>>>>>>>> activemq. How will the current pmc ensure that this is really
>>>>>>>> be the case? (fwiw, I do get questions about the relationship
>>>>>>>> between amq6 and 5 already, and for the life of me I don't
know how
>>>>>>>> to answer).
>>>>>>>> Choosing a different name, as I think Rob suggested too,
would have
>>>>>>>> made this a moot point.
>>>>>>>> My $0.02,
>>>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>>> On 03/23/2015 10:07 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
>>>>>>>>> +1 to the -M1 naming, I think that captures intent perfectly.
>>>>>>>>> On 23 March 2015 at 10:09, Andy Taylor <>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> So I think the consensus is to go with ActiveMQ 6.0.0-M1
so we
>>>>>>>>>> will go
>>>>>>>>>> ahead and cut a new RC in the next day or so. We
will also add
>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> content the website so users are clear that currently
there isn't
>>>>>>>>>> feature parity between ActiveMQ 5 and ActiveMQ 6.
We will then
>>>>>>>>>> raise
>>>>>>>>>> JIRA to map out a migration path post release.
>>>>>>>>>> On 20/03/15 20:40, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:25 PM, artnaseef <>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please help me to understand how this would
>>>>>>>>>>>> We would use 6.0.0-M1, 6.0.0-M2, etc until
when? Until we are
>>>>>>>>>>>> ready to
>>>>>>>>>>>> declare that 6.0.0 is a replacement for 5.x?
>>>>>>>>>>>> After that, then we simply drop the -M# (i.e.
release the first
>>>>>>>>>>>> 6.0.0)?
>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah.. That's exactly how I see it.

View raw message