Thinking about the issue of community and community-building, I agree with Hadrian here.
HornetQ could have been its own project, built-up its own community (including winning over members from the AMQ community who are behind it) and started on its own footing. There's nothing that would have prevented it from following the same technical path outside of the ActiveMQ brand, even getting to a place where it could replace ActiveMQ. As an example of the importance of community to this process -- the plan to use the -M# naming requires community involvement to be a success. Yet, so far, I haven't seen much community involvement in HornetQ and the effort. And to Jamie Goodyear's point, what are the benefits to the ActiveMQ community? When I saw the call to accept the donation of HornetQ into ActiveMQ, I thought it mean pulling parts of the HornetQ code base into the existing ActiveMQ code base. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693736.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
