On 03/27/2015 03:11 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: >> On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> After this thread, it's painfully clear that there won't be any convergence >> and it's best for both communities to evolve independently. > Huh? I don’t agree with that at all. It appears to me like it’s just you > that feels there won’t be any convergence. The Hornet folks are doing a ton > of work to get the “code” in a good state to support it, most of the “AMQ5” > devs are supportive of the efforts although a bit short on time to help. > From this thread, it looks like even the “users” are supportive of getting > the Hornet codebase into a state to be AMQ6. Lets get a “milestone” release > out (give it a code name if you really object to 6.0-m1) to help foster some > excitement around it, start getting contributions and committers and > eventually PMC members, and hopefully we can even back port some of the ideas > and such to 5.x. This is exactly the kind of thing this community needs to > help foster diversity and growth and all that. Sitting around doing the > "status quo” has obviously done very little to change anything. > > Dan > +1 completely agree with Dan on this.
>> Sure, it is expected that some of the developers would move to the new kid >> on the block project, that's fine, actually great for the new project. The >> new project could reuse whatever they want from ActiveMQ, grow a community. >> If at a later time there is a desire for convergence it can still happen. >> >> Continuing like this, I fear, will be a big distraction for both projects, >> not good for any of the two communities. I hope some sort of resolution will >> happen soon. >> >> Cheers, >> Hadrian >> >> On 03/27/2015 01:28 PM, Hiram Chirino 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 >>> >>> -- Tim Bish Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc. tim.b...@redhat.com | www.redhat.com twitter: @tabish121 blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
