activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Special Board Report
Date Tue, 21 Apr 2015 01:24:49 GMT
>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?

We actually did right away, remember?...We tried to rename it to
6.0.0.M1... (not final any longer... we would have M2, M3... until it
was ready to be released).

But these email threads get so long that 3 days ago seem 1 year ago.



On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
>
> Hadrian
>
>
>
>
> On 04/20/2015 08:54 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com>
>> 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.
>>
>



-- 
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com

Mime
View raw message