activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <>
Subject Re: Special Board Report
Date Tue, 21 Apr 2015 01:16:38 GMT
So far so good. And there was a recommendation to change the name. Do 
you remember what happened next?

There was a claim that hornetq is just another suproject, like other 
ActiveMQ subproject. Except that those are other language bindings, 
complementary to the ActiveMQ (well, except Apollo). This is actually a 
full blown project competing with ActiveMQ (some 6 months ago) and now 
supposed to replace ActiveMQ once everybody gives up. I have never heard 
of an open source project being replaced by another in a future version.

Now I have stop being a squeaky wheel. It's sad to notice that some 
interests seem to be clouding common sense. Why didn't you guys admit a 
few weeks back that it was a mistake? Actually, when did you realize it 
was a mistake?


On 04/20/2015 08:54 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <> wrote:
>> I voted in favour of the code donation. I also voted for the activemq6 name
>> back then. The way it was presented back then, read the threads, was that
>> hornetq comes with jms 2.0 support, better threading model, we'll take
>> what's good there and incorporate it into activemq. The same all is peachy
>> message as the current board report.
>> A few months later, the first activemq 6 release, I personally wasn't that
>> interested in yet, still a long way from a production release. Then there
>> was -1 vote due to name clashes. I seconded that with a -1 of my own. And
>> then everything went haywire, right? I suggested a change of name, read the
>> threads, and then the reaction from the Winston/Fuse crowd, which I didn't
>> call evil nor conspiracy (although my understanding as of late is that
>> everything was planned in a corporation meeting rooms) was very violent. The
>> consequence was my recommendation to grow HornetQ in the right place for
>> that at the ASF.
> Did you actually read the code or the changes made?
> It was pretty clear from the beginning this was going to be a
> sub-project and we would incorporate changes.. there was a new repo
> open, a new JIRA open, new jiras fed...     and 205 Pull requests with
> about 400 committs in 4 months...
> We incorporated OpenWire, changed how connection factories are
> serialized and persisted to be exactly the same as what's done on
> ActiveMQ5, the server start was recently changed to be exactly as
> what's done on Apollo, Documentation was changed around a lot to be
> consistent with Apache brands... etc.. etc.. etc...
> Nothing different than what agreed was done...
> Nothing was done behind meeting rooms I assure you.. in fact we were
> just set to deliver what we agreed as part of the donation, while we
> were clearing up the Cat-X dependencies and renames.
> It was a mistake was to call it activemq-6.0.0.. as we knew we were
> not ready.. it was just the first release..
> That has been said a few times already, and you ignore these points.

View raw message