activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6
Date Wed, 06 Dec 2017 21:28:34 GMT
+1 to 'Agree that the goal should be to work as a community to make 
Artemis become ActiveMQ 6'


On 12/6/17 2:48 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
> According to the ASF Voting page (
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html):
>
> 'Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless of
> the number of votes in each category. '
>
> However, given that there are some binding -1s, I believe it is in
> everyone's best interest to stop this vote and prepare a plan to move
> forward as a group.
>
> In the interest of moving forward as a group, I have created a page
> specifically for the Artemis Roadmap here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/ActiveMQ+Artemis+Roadmap
>
> I encourage everyone to contribute to this page and discuss it in a
> separate discussion thread on the dev@activemq list. I will start a
> separate discussion for this topic now.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> @Justin,
>>
>> In terms of consensus it depends on what it is with Apache.  I know for
>> releases you just need a majority vote but for code modifications a -1 by a
>> PMC member is a veto.
>>
>> In this case I'm not entirely sure but I think the -1 votes in this thread
>> would be considered a veto unless they are changed.
>>
>> See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> @Jeff:
>>>
>>> All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and future.
>>>
>>> We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and release
>>> whenever it was ready.
>>>
>>> We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what would drive
>>> people using it.. etc.. etc..
>>>
>>> Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no adoption, and
>>> there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at the
>>> website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help at
>>> all!!!).
>>>
>>> If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on the
>>> website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before
>>> starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into
>>> here).
>>>
>>> Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these agenda
>>> items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
>>> answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
>>> used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view on
>>> where we will get.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis more
>>> prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <jgenender@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying agenda
>>> as
>>>> you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies.
>>> Sorry,
>>>> just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back the
>>>> knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.  That's a shame
>>> and
>>>> I really hope that is not the direction this is going.
>>>>
>>>> This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because some
>>> folks
>>>> are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its
>> technical
>>>> because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from
>>> AMQ5.
>>>> I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic - whatever)
>> is
>>>> being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means
>> its
>>>> the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the
>> old.
>>>> Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on numerical
>>>> versions for a majority of software and this one in particular - that's
>>>> technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is both PR
>>> *and*
>>>> technical.
>>>>
>>>> My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis ultimately
>>>> becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has
>>> reasonable
>>>> compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some basic
>>>> stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running AMQ5,
>>>> which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority of
>>> our
>>>> community.
>>>>
>>>> The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very
>>> reasonable.
>>>> Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line
>> so
>>>> that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why is that
>>>> viewed as so unreasonable?
>>>>
>>>> I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming
>> and
>>>> vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an agenda and
>>>> there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
>>>>
>>>> https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w
>>> hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
>>>> Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
>>>>
>>>> https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/
>>> artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
>>>> Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a
>> numbering
>>>> with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear people in
>>> the
>>>> community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There is no
>>>> ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss
>> AMQ
>>> 7.
>>>> So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do
>> with
>>>> vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with vendors
>> and
>>>> this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of the day
>>> and
>>>> in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with
>> this.
>>>> But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately
>>> clouds
>>>> this immensely.
>>>>
>>>> So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers
>> here
>>> are
>>>> ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are asking a
>>>> relative simple request: Can we please increase the community adoption
>>> and
>>>> get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this
>> non-technical
>>>> once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis == ActiveMQ
>> 6.
>>>> IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in HornetQ
>>> and
>>>> why it was named Artemis to begin with.
>>>>
>>>> Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon when
>>>> bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and eat
>>> it
>>>> too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404
>> .
>>> html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>
>
>


Mime
View raw message