> On Mar 24, 2015, at 12:12 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote: > Precisely. That's what I was trying to say. > So, it sounds to me that others too share my concerns and, RH excepted, the > consensus is actually more on the opposite side, hornetq should use a > different name (activemq-hornet or something).
Well, no. I’m not RH but I feel that the 6.0.0-M# number and sticking with ActiveMQ naming is fine. :-) Dan > > True? > Hadrian > > > On 03/24/2015 12:02 PM, Jamie G. wrote: >> Then it sounds like calling it org.apache.activemq.hornetq would have >> made the most sense here. >> >> Easy, straightforward naming. No one gets confused. >> >> When Servicemix Kernel went to Apache Felix we rebranded as Apache >> Felix Karaf. The transition seemed to make sense to all users. We kept >> the name when the project went top level. If the virgo project was to >> be donated to Karaf, I'd suspect we'd call it org.apache.karaf.virgo >> instead of Karaf 5.0. >> >> My 2 cents CAD, >> Jamie >> >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Martyn Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Surely that is exactly where we have come from with HornetQ? >>> >>> >>> On 24/03/15 14:59, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: >>>> >>>> Clearly some mentoring is badly needed :(. >>>> >>>> Here's my suggestion then, let's see how you like it. Ask the ActiveMQ pmc >>>> to change the name from activemq6 to something else. Prove that you can >>>> build a community around the project independent of the perception to be an >>>> upgrade of activemq. >>>> >>>> Then you'll have my full support. WDYT? >>>> >>>> Hadrian >>>> >>>> On 03/24/2015 10:28 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 24/03/15 13:26, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> That's my point :). How do you define general consensus? >>>>> >>>>> By general consensus, I meant that the number of people who replied in >>>>> favour of milestone releases is greater than (n / 2). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This very much looks like HornetQ taking over ActiveMQ. It very much >>>>>> looks to me like two different groups doing their own thing >>>>>> independently on the same mailing list. >>>>> >>>>> I am not sure how you have come to that conclusion. I am merely >>>>> proposing a vote on an RC using the milestone versioning as proposed by >>>>> a member of the community. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> More I have to think about it, more uneasy I feel. One would have >>>>>> expected to see some activemq6/hornetq presence at apachecon for >>>>>> instance. I don't see any efforts to build a community besides this >>>>>> 'evolution' from activemq5. Are there breakout sessions planned at the >>>>>> redhat summit? How is the community going to grow? >>>>> >>>>> How does any open source community grow? We will promote the project >>>>> and invite the existing ActiveMQ community and beyond to try it out, get >>>>> involved, raise JIRAs, request features and all the goodness that open >>>>> source brings. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am totally confused. You inform us that you will "follow up with a >>>>>> new RC based on the 6.0.0.M# versioning". Ok, and then what? >>>>> >>>>> There is no need for confusion. Hopefully we will release 6.0.0.M1, and >>>>> we will have something concrete to discuss and for the community to try >>>>> out. We can incrementally address migration concerns as they arise in >>>>> subsequent milestones. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Hadrian >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 03/24/2015 08:59 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I realise there is still some anxiety, but the general consensus seems >>>>>>> to be to move forward with the ActiveMQ 6.0.0.M#. I'd like to continue >>>>>>> moving forward with getting an initial release of the HornetQ code >>>>>>> donation out there for people to use and evaluate. I'll follow up with >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> new RC based on 6.0.0.M# versioning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 24/03/15 12:07, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
