activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Wed, 08 Apr 2015 22:44:13 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message