We have already started adapting code from ActiveMQ 5, the activemq-selector module for instance was taken straight from ActiveMQ 5 and the Openwire protocol is also supported. I for one will be pro active in building the community and hope that in the future we receive contributions from many and varied members of the community. Its a shame your so busy David :).
Andy Taylor On 24/03/15 02:43, David Jencks wrote: > 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. >>>>> >>>> >
