Good question, how is that more work for everyone? More choices, sure.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Really Jon? > > How will that "make more work for everyone"? Who is everyone. > > Hadrian > > > On 03/27/2015 02:30 PM, Jon Anstey wrote: >> >> If you read the initial thread for the code grant, the whole point was to >> NOT have 2 brokers & communities; it was to work together as one. >> >> "There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two brokers today >> and >> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities for us to >> join >> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend our time >> duplicating efforts on both brokers." >> >> >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Possible-HornetQ-donation-to-ActiveMQ-td4682971.html >> >> IMO putting this new broker in the incubator is a bad idea and will just >> make more work for everyone... >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I'm with Hadrian on this one. Incubation seems like the proper route >>> for this code, to me. HornetQ already has a well-established >>> community and apparently a kick-ass code base. One might wonder why >>> HornetQ wants to come here in the first place if everything is so >>> unicorns and rainbows. Anyway, if there are features of AMQ that >>> HornetQ (or whatever name it decides to take on here at the ASF) wants >>> from AMQ, it can easily integrate them as they see fit, without the >>> burden of trying to maintain backward compatibility and develop a >>> smooth migration path. >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view >>>> points. At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ >>>> project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution >>>> is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5. >>>> >>>> So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably >>>> a bad idea. A this point I think the code donation should follow the >>>> path the apollo took and switch to a code name. It should continue to >>>> do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x >>>> users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to >>>> become. >>>> >>>> We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to >>>> the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by >>>>> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be >>>>> heard.) >>>>> >>>>> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Chris, >>>>>> >>>>>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think >>>>>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been >>>>>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM >>>>>> perspective. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but >>>>> the >>>>> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the >>> >>> project, >>>>> >>>>> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version. >>> >>> This >>>>> >>>>> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the >>> >>> project >>>>> >>>>> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the >>>>> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious >>> >>> accusation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased >>> >>> on >>>>> >>>>> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate >>> >>> affiliation - >>>>> >>>>> an even more serious accusation. >>>>> >>>>> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being >>> >>> imported >>>>> >>>>> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue >>> >>> of a >>>>> >>>>> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC. >>>>> >>>>> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have >>>>> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel >>>>> that >>>>> their voice is ignored on the PMC list. >>>>> >>>>> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been >>>>> suggested. >>>>> >>>>> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC. >>>>> >>>>> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it >>> >>> the >>>>> >>>>> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see >>> >>> that >>>>> >>>>> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code >>> >>> be >>>>> >>>>> taken to the incubator.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen >>>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Hiram Chirino >>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. >>>> hchir...@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com >>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino >>> >>> >> >> >> >
