It seems to me that a different name would mean a different project. IIUC AMQ accepted the code so not having it turn into amq-xxx seems a bit odd to me.
What is stopping all the non-jboss-employees (yes, showing my age here) from enthusiastically digging into the code and adapting from amq 5 or implementing anew all the missing bits? My limited understanding is that the amq 5 broker sort of reached a dead end and needed a rewrite rather than incremental improvement, first Apollo tried to do it in Scala which not enough people understood, and now there's a new bunch of java code to look at. It seems to me that one of the roles of the preexisting committers is to help the new ones learn about apache. What better way than by pitching in and working on the code together? wishing I had time to actually contribute rather than just argue…. david jencks On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote: > Now here lies the problem. > > I agree that it captures the intent well. That also creates an expectation > from the users and sort of a promise from the activemq pmc, amplified by the > vendors' marketing (well, exactly one in this case). The same promise has > been made with apollo. > > I am less concerned with the rewrite. To me that is not an issue. If smaller > or larger parts are rewritten but maintain (reasonable) feature parity, it is > an evolution of the same project. > > I am however more concerned with the ability of the activemq6 > podling/subproject to build a diverse community. So far I don't see > encouraging signs. My fear is that the result will be alienation of the more > diverse activemq 5.x community (still less diverse than it should be) and > turn activemq into a one company show. > > So far it looks it looks to me that the perception card was played, with the > choice of name. It *sounds* like activemq6 the evolution of activemq. How > will the current pmc ensure that this is really gonna be the case? (fwiw, I > do get questions about the relationship between amq6 and 5 already, and for > the life of me I don't know how to answer). > > Choosing a different name, as I think Rob suggested too, would have made this > a moot point. > > My $0.02, > Hadrian > > > > > On 03/23/2015 10:07 AM, Gary Tully wrote: >> +1 to the -M1 naming, I think that captures intent perfectly. >> >> On 23 March 2015 at 10:09, Andy Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: >>> So I think the consensus is to go with ActiveMQ 6.0.0-M1 so we will go >>> ahead and cut a new RC in the next day or so. We will also add some >>> content the website so users are clear that currently there isn't >>> feature parity between ActiveMQ 5 and ActiveMQ 6. We will then raise >>> JIRA to map out a migration path post release. >>> >>> On 20/03/15 20:40, Clebert Suconic wrote: >>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:25 PM, artnaseef <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Please help me to understand how this would go. >>>>> >>>>> We would use 6.0.0-M1, 6.0.0-M2, etc until when? Until we are ready to >>>>> declare that 6.0.0 is a replacement for 5.x? >>>>> >>>>> After that, then we simply drop the -M# (i.e. release the first 6.0.0)? >>>> >>>> Yeah.. That's exactly how I see it. >>>> >>>
