Wow... I expect someone to chime in. Does this mean everyone agrees that hawtio needs to be treated like every other 3rd party library we redistribute?
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote: > Starting up a new thread to avoid hijacking the original POLL thread. > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Without the hawt.io community donating the relevant ActiveMQ portions to the >> ASF we will not be able to get a consensus around proposal #3. Thus, that >> needs to be taken off the table. > > I think that's a faulty assumption that needs to get discussed and addressed. > > Any hawtio UI that we package in the ActiveMQ will be reviewed by the > PMC. Like any 3rd party library that we ship, it has to have an > approved license and it's functionality has to be tested and verified > by the ActiveMQ project. If we the PMC does not like some detail of > hawtio we just need to open issues to address them and once it's to > the PMC's liking we can then package it. This is no different from > any other 3rd party lib we use so why are we treating it differently? > > -- > Hiram Chirino -- Hiram Chirino Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. hchir...@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo
