activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6
Date Thu, 07 Dec 2017 01:22:15 GMT
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
>

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