Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-activemq-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A0BC175D5 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:42:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 21836 invoked by uid 500); 26 Mar 2015 16:42:32 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-dev-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 21779 invoked by uid 500); 26 Mar 2015 16:42:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 21768 invoked by uid 99); 26 Mar 2015 16:42:31 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:42:31 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.3 required=5.0 tests=URI_HEX,URI_TRY_3LD X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: error (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [162.253.133.43] (HELO mwork.nabble.com) (162.253.133.43) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:42:26 +0000 Received: from mjoe.nabble.com (unknown [162.253.133.57]) by mwork.nabble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9546218C313E for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:29:18 -0700 (PDT) From: artnaseef To: dev@activemq.apache.org Message-ID: <1427387358298-4693856.post@n4.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1427299537888-4693805.post@n4.nabble.com> <14F45FF3-17F1-4CCF-8276-ABABC1AD57E4@yahoo.com> <5512FDEF.7030608@gmail.com> <55132044.3050903@gmail.com> <43A97DB3-4B34-46F7-BE8C-94BF0F51B650@gmail.com> <55135666.4000601@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org > 5.x needs a new core. I think this point is really at the heart of the entire disagreement here. The initial grant vote did not mention that HornetQ was going to be taken as a *replacement* for the entirety of ActiveMQ. As several folks have mentioned here, we had the impression the code was going to be made available for merging into the ActiveMQ code base. If the initial vote had been, "[VOTE] accept HornetQ as ActiveMQ 6 to replace the existing code base", the results of the vote would have been very different. It may still have passed, but there would have been this same discussion back then before heading part-way down this path, and there would be no reason to discuss it now. Chris - I think you mentioned there was a vote to bring HornetQ folks into the AMQ PMC. I don't believe that happened (someone please correct me if I have it wrong). -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ-ActiveMQ-s-next-generation-tp4693781p4693856.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.