activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruce Snyder <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6
Date Wed, 06 Dec 2017 15:57:37 GMT
This is why I suggested using explicit statements to clarify exactly what
is being voted on.


On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <> wrote:

> Gary,
> That is precisely what folks vote -1 against. I hope you are not implying
> that the -1s should not be counted because you believe the -1s where for a
> different reason.
> Surely you must remember the same issue being raised and a vote called
> some 2 years ago if my memory serves me well (I can look it up if
> necessary). Exactly same vote, exactly same statement of intent. You know
> how that went. What changed to start it all over again?
> Can we agree that this vote is a PR/marketing play, not technology? This
> is not a vote for a controversial feature people can't agree on, nor on
> accepting an external contribution, nor a release vote. What is it?
> Some see Artemis as the future of ActiveMQ. Other gray beards see it as a
> project that needs to get more adoption an prove itself before it's clear
> that it can be the evolution of the current 5.x version that serves the
> market very well (proven yet again by AWS). No consensus yet.
> Hadrian
> On 12/06/2017 10:45 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <> wrote:
>> My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially state
>>> the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
>>> ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
>>> concerns.
>> This was also my understanding and what I voted for.
>> Maybe the intent of the vote needs to be clarified.
>> is this what folks voted against?
>> gary.

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:
Blog: <>

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