activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruce Snyder <bruce.sny...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6
Date Thu, 07 Dec 2017 01:27:25 GMT
John, as I stated, I did not put any restrictions on the page. None of us
has any special access to the wiki page, we just log in to the wiki and
click the 'Edit' button. Are you not able to see the page? Are able to see
the page but not the 'Edit' button?

Bruce

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:22 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org> wrote:

> Can you check if "johndament" has edit access?
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:07 PM Bruce Snyder <bruce.snyder@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I did not restrict the page. In looking at the page restrictions, there
> are
> > none so anyone with credentials for the wiki should be able to view and
> > edit it.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:56 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:48 PM Bruce Snyder <bruce.snyder@gmail.com>
> > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Can you please grant committers write access to this page?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > perl -e 'print
> > > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> > );'
> > > >
> > > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> > > > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > perl -e 'print
> > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
> >
> > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
> >
>



-- 
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'

ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message