Hi David,
I actually fully agree with your statement in principle. Personally, I
would be all for it, we did the same kind of rewrite in Camel when we
moved from 1.x to 2.0, and it was a long and painful process. Speaking
of which there were talks about a Camel 3.0 for at least 3 years that I
am quite skeptical of.
In this case, hornetq is actually a completely different product, voted
into the community by a vendor who has the vast majority of the pmc
votes. Even that would not matter that much if the rest of the community
would buy into the vision of hornetq morphing into the next amq, more or
less a drop in replacement as others stated in the thread.
Your analogy with Apollo is exactly what I mean. As much as I like the
elegance of scala I did not buy into its ability to catalyse a
community. If enough users jump off the activemq 5.x wagon and its
successor doesn't get enough steam, then activemq would reach a "dead end".
I don't know what the future would bring. And honestly, I don't know
what the best choice is. Based on my previous experience, I choose to
err on the conservative side, yet I wish for the best.
The onus is on the new podling to build a community. The fact that it
was adopted by the activemq project doesn't mean that it must use the
same name, it means that the activemq pmc took on the duty of mentoring
the new committers (past example, among others: smx kernel moving to
felix and then going tlp).
Speaking of mentoring, it is not something that can be imposed.
Personally, I have never been asked anything by new committers in the
activemq community. I do however mentor other communities. Tinkerpop is
such an example, and man, it's a joy, the project is growing well and
the technology is awesome. There are other examples where it doesn't
work so well.
Bottom line, activemq6 must build a community. With a different name it
could prove that it's capable of doing it on its own. This way it's
stealing from the activemq5 community. That's fine, but then address its
needs and make the users happy: seamless migration, near drop in
replacement.
Cheers,
Hadrian
On 03/23/2015 10:43 PM, 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.
