activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Posta <christian.po...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:46:42 GMT
+1

On Friday, March 27, 2015, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:

>
> > On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > After this thread, it's painfully clear that there won't be any
> convergence and it's best for both communities to evolve independently.
>
> Huh?   I don’t agree with that at all.   It appears to me like it’s just
> you that feels there won’t be any convergence.  The Hornet folks are doing
> a ton of work to get the “code” in a good state to support it, most of the
> “AMQ5” devs are supportive of the efforts although a bit short on time to
> help.  From this thread, it looks like even the “users” are supportive of
> getting the Hornet codebase into a state to be AMQ6.   Lets get a
> “milestone” release out (give it a code name if you really object to
> 6.0-m1) to help foster some excitement around it, start getting
> contributions and committers and eventually PMC members, and hopefully we
> can even back port some of the ideas and such to 5.x.   This is exactly the
> kind of thing this community needs to help foster diversity and growth and
> all that.   Sitting around doing the "status quo” has obviously done very
> little to change anything.
>
> Dan
>
>
> > Sure, it is expected that some of the developers would move to the new
> kid on the block project, that's fine, actually great for the new project.
> The new project could reuse whatever they want from ActiveMQ, grow a
> community. If at a later time there is a desire for convergence it can
> still happen.
> >
> > Continuing like this, I fear, will be a big distraction for both
> projects, not good for any of the two communities. I hope some sort of
> resolution will happen soon.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Hadrian
> >
> > On 03/27/2015 01:28 PM, Hiram Chirino 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
> <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;> - @rbowen
> >>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
>

-- 
*Christian Posta*
twitter: @christianposta
http://www.christianposta.com/blog
http://fabric8.io

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message