Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of hzbarcea@gmail.com designates
 209.85.192.53 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <55115388.7070302@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 08:07:36 -0400
From: Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
References: <1426807969583-4693508.post@n4.nabble.com>
	<CAKF+bsrsXZVa=qkL19D6ArxmXnbX7g4w-Ai=cfWP0x0RovMBUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1426813065085-4693512.post@n4.nabble.com>
	<6BDB4166-1677-4F9A-8860-949E787CCFFE@apache.org>
	<550C3E1C.3020403@gmail.com>	<1426869051850-4693549.post@n4.nabble.com>
	<CAGZ-RDJZoVtBUONLw+tVM3fLwh2dyFxjZ8SCnoPTiS1nZArkrg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALznzY7bXHJdAnNUKnO2i83YUpDLL6AFMA8UgeQ1CKx_C2nz_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<1426875598873-4693553.post@n4.nabble.com>
	<CAGZ-RDK8ZE8o=arTgbk9YkK_BQaXEKySmEq0TKSd2H+zAaeCfg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1426883140396-4693559.post@n4.nabble.com>
	<CAKF+bsoZNU195fejVx9H8uR7nU+uN2jK39XXyAX8C4jKYW0RSA@mail.gmail.com>
	<550FE659.8090109@gmail.com>
 <CAH+vQmN6=8WjvFG3NhcJzCmfGPXJv25j5UtJFtm0086J60_Shw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5510BDA5.6020404@gmail.com> <8813A718-B307-4AA1-A3C4-9F947ACF9378@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <8813A718-B307-4AA1-A3C4-9F947ACF9378@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi David,

I actually fully agree with your statement in principle. Personally, I 
would be all for it, we did the same kind of rewrite in Camel when we 
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 that 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 the 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 next 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 the 
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 to 
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 it 
was adopted by the activemq project doesn't mean that it must use the 
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 the 
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 it's 
stealing from the activemq5 community. That's fine, but then address its 
needs and make the users happy: seamless migration, near drop in 
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 age here) from enthusiastically digging into the code and adapting from 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 now there's a new bunch of java code to look at.
>
> It seems to me that one of the roles of the preexisting committers is to help the new ones learn about apache.  What better way than by 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 <hzbarcea@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Now here lies the problem.
>>
>> I agree that it captures the intent well. That also creates an expectation from the users and sort of a promise from the activemq 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 of 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 played, with the choice of name. It *sounds* like activemq6 the evolution of activemq. How will the current pmc ensure that this is really gonna 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 <andy.tayls67@gmail.com> 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 <art@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Please help me to understand how this would go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>