activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Thu, 09 Apr 2015 01:22:58 GMT
See Guillaume, it is precisely this attitude that created the problem in 
the first place.

One of the first things developers learn in the incubator is that it's 
not their project any longer, it's an ASF project. And the ASF has some 
very clear values, backed by years of experience. One of them is diversity.

You are saying that those who made the initial contribution, wrote 90% 
of the code, they know better and should be trusted whenever they feel 
like it to replace the project with another one, because, well, the 
current one "will soon be abandoned for lack of committers". Never mind 
that the current PMC never bothered to bring in committers with 
interests different than theirs and is constantly trying to control vs 
grow the community. What you are saying is that you already decided to 
move to the new one, hornetq, you just want to keep the brand.

I am looking forward to having a chat at apachecon next week with the 
HornetQ folks who will show up (if they want to) and expose a side of 
the ASF they were not introduced to at the Fuse water cooler. (There are 
awesome ASFers at RH, I bet they were not consulted.) Hopefully they 
will understand why my proposal is meant to make them successful, in the 
same way that my initial proposal for the project rename was intended to 
give the hornetq community time to mature. I hope to have a (positive) 
influence on their understanding of the situation.

Best,
Hadrian


On 04/08/2015 06:44 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> 2015-04-08 22:52 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <mattmann@apache.org>:
>
>> This isn’t a flame war, and you continue to state things about
>> what’s going to be maintained and what’s not, and it’s not backed
>> by fact. Some comments below:
>>
>>
>> [...]
>
>>
>>> [..]
>>> In this very case, I think this is a technical decision, and my trust
>>> clearly goes to the ones that know and wrote 90% of the code, and when
>>> they all  seem to say the "hornetq" broker should replace the activemq 5
>>> one, I don't see why I should give it
>>> any more second thoughts.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can try to be gentle and accept other solutions, such as a renaming and
>>> having 2 brokers.  But I do very well know that one will be soon
>>> abandoned for a lack of committers working on the core broker.
>>> Maintaining the activemq 5 broker is fine, but I
>>> certainly fail to see how there will be an activemq 6 broker based on
>>> activemq 5 with major changes, if none of the committers on the broker
>>> are willing to work on it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The talk about no one wanting to develop ActiveMQ 5 isn’t backed
>> by the data. It doesn’t support that.
>
>
>>  From reporter.apache.org:
>>
>> The project is frequently releasing code:
>> from: http://www.apache.org/dist/activemq/
>>    (5.11.0 was released in Feb 2015)
>>    (5.10.2 was released in Feb 2015)
>> from: http://archive.apache.org/dist/activemq/
>>    (5.10.1 was released in Jan 2015)
>>    (5.10.0 was released in Jane 2014)
>>    (4.9.1 was released in April 2014)
>>
>> 256 JIRA tickets created and 160 closed in last 3 months.
>>
>
> Lies, damned lies and statistics... ;-)
> Did I ever say that there was no development at all in the ActiveMQ project
> ?
>
> That's not what I said. I talked about evolving the activemq 5 *core broker*
> code into a next generation broker for activemq 6, not about maintaining
> the activemq 5 broker and also not about adding additional protocols,
> persistence mechanism, etc...and certainly not about fixing bugs.
> When I write "*core broker*" explicitly, it rules out any non core
> components, which are more easily ported to a new broker implementation
> (see earlier points made by David Jencks).
>
> So we're talking about the next major version of the *core broker*.  The
> attempt to write such a new broker was Apollo and it started in February
> 2009.  This kinda implies the *core broker* is mostly in maintenance mode
> since a few years.
>
> I'm not sure how the situation would have recently changed and that people
> suddenly want to start writing a new broker now, but I'm certainly wrong as
> I can't back feelings and experience by shiny statistics.
>
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So pointing to RedHat for abusive trademarks use or violation simply does
>>>> not make any sense to me.
>>>> So I don't see that there is anything to fix, but clarifying how the code
>>>> currently located in the activemq6 git repository  will be named, either
>>>> activemq6 or something else, which can't be Apache HornetQ at this point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2015-04-08 18:09 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <mattmann@apache.org>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Gary,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks. Well, we have a major problem then - see the
>>>>> subject of this email thread, and much of the discussion
>>>>> the last month. The discussion is one of these options:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Apache ActiveMQ has multiple products with multiple versions:
>>>>>   a.  ActiveMQ - (version 5.x.x)
>>>>>   b.  HornetQ - (which some are trying to call ActiveMQ version 6.x.x)
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Apache ActiveMQ has 1 product with multiple versions:
>>>>>    a. ActiveMQ (version 5.x.x and version 6.x.x)
>>>>>    <—there is NOTHING in this option that mandates the current HornetQ
>>>>> code becoming 6.x.x of ActiveMQ; also NOTHING stopping that. Decision
>>>>> needs to be made.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Whatever is in the code repo now as ActiveMQ 6.x.x becomes
>>>>> Apache HornetQ (incubating)
>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like you are taking 1b; and and 2a off the table. You
>>>>> are doing so, b/c Apache doesn’t accept code donations that are
>>>>> centered around names and trademarks that we don’t own; otherwise
>>>>> the product is renamed - the proposed renaming of it centers around
>>>>> abuse of trademarks since the proposed rename leverages an existing
>>>>> Apache product name. There hasn’t been work here to deal with the due
>>>>> diligence of trademarks related to the HornetQ name.
>>>>>
>>>>> The community will need to have a plan for fixing that in its
>>>>> board report. I suggest working on that plan, rather than trying
>>>>> to correct my understanding. I also strongly suggest the community
>>>>> engage with trademarks@ and achieve something acceptable as I’m
>>>>> fairly sure that this isn’t.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com>
>>>>> Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
>>>>> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:56 AM
>>>>> To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <dev@activemq.apache.org>
>>>>> Cc: <board@apache.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>> on 1) there may be a misunderstanding here. The code grant is just
>>>>>> that, code. there is no trademark grant. There is no intention of
>>>>>> having apache hornetq, that is not an option with the code grant
that
>>>>>> we have. Part of ip clearance and cleanup was to remove all references
>>>>>> to hornetq. 2(3) was the intent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cheers,
>>>>>> Gary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8 April 2015 at 15:46, Chris Mattmann <mattmann@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are my following concerns as an ASF director that the ActiveMQ
>>>>>>> community needs to address.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. RH has a product, called HornetQ, which includes a website;
>>>>>>> branding, etc.  http://hornetq.jboss.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At a minimum this is an extreme branding confusion if this is
>>>>>>> ActiveMQ 6 and even more so if there is a HornetQ branch in an
>>>>>>> Apache code repo. We don’t allow companies to come into Apache
and
>>>>>>> create confusion by importing their *still existing* products
into
>>>>>>> our neutral zone at the ASF and then keep maintaining their external
>>>>>>> websites and so forth. This needs to be rectified, ASAP.  If
HornetQ
>>>>>>> exists in an Apache repo (which it does right now) -
>>>>> hornetq.jboss.org <http://hornetq.jboss.org>
>>>>>>> needs to go away at a date identified by the PMC in its next
board
>>>>>>> report.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. The ActiveMQ PMC needs to deliver a plan for: (1) keeping
the
>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>> as 1 project with multiple “products”; or (2) spinning out
HornetQ
>>>>> into
>>>>>>> Incubator or straight to TLP; or (3) keeping the community as
1
>>>>> project
>>>>>>> with a single “product”. These are the only options. A choice
must
>>>>>>> be identified and made by the PMC in its next board report.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would strongly encourage the community also to think about
the
>>>>>>> role of the PMC chair in all of this. To that point, the current
>>>>>>> chair has been the chair for *many* years and based on the current
>>>>>>> status and issues in the community, I would strongly suggest
having
>>>>>>> a plan for potentially replacing the chair of the project. It’s
a
>>>>>>> healthy thing to do and these community issues may be better
>>>>>>> identified by some fresh blood and energy. I fully expect the
above
>>>>>>> issues to be discussed, and identified between now and April
22
>>>>>>> which is the next board meeting and the PMC’s report.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
>>>>>>> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 5:03 PM
>>>>>>> To: <board@apache.org>, ActiveMQ-Developers
>>>>> <dev@activemq.apache.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please note: earlier messages Jim has sent were as "Jim,
the
>>>>> individual"
>>>>>>>> using his years of experience at Apache to review the situation,
and
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> provide feedback. Chris Mattman has also been assisting lately;
>>>>> again,
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> "Chris, the individual".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This message below is on **behalf of the Board**. Jim may
have been
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> messenger, but what is happening in Apache ActiveMQ is now
a
>>>>> specific
>>>>>>>> concern of the Board. As such, it needs to be addressed per
Jim's
>>>>> note.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Greg Stein
>>>>>>>> ASF Director, and Vice Chairman
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an
issue which
>>>>>>>>> is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important
>>>>>>>>> project and community.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As such:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going
on in
>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ.
>>>>>>>>> There appear to be two distinct factions under the same
ASF
>>>>> umbrella
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ";
>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared
to start
>>>>> off
>>>>>>>>> as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow
together,
>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power
>>>>> struggle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The board is not happy about the current state of affairs.
The job
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly
that
>>>>> job
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> not being done effectively. The board offers its help
and strongly
>>>>>>>>> encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more
>>>>> pro-active
>>>>>>>>> action is required by the board.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ
PMC
>>>>> and a
>>>>>>>>> roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious
project,
>>>>>>>>> or as 2 distinct projects.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message