activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Guggi <daniel.gu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Wed, 08 Apr 2015 22:52:55 GMT
exaclty my point also - when i read chris' response...

no offend, but contribution like this is ... - Period. (imho it even
contributes to "flame war")





On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@apache.org> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message