2015-04-09 6:50 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <[email protected]>: > Hi Guillaume, > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 3:44 PM > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation > > >>[..snip..] > >> > >> The talk about no one wanting to develop ActiveMQ 5 isn’t backed > >> by the data. It doesn’t support that. > > > > > >> From reporter.apache.org: > >> > >> The project is frequently releasing code: > >> from: http://www.apache.org/dist/activemq/ > >> (5.11.0 was released in Feb 2015) > >> (5.10.2 was released in Feb 2015) > >> from: http://archive.apache.org/dist/activemq/ > >> (5.10.1 was released in Jan 2015) > >> (5.10.0 was released in Jane 2014) > >> (4.9.1 was released in April 2014) > >> > >> 256 JIRA tickets created and 160 closed in last 3 months. > >> > > > >Lies, damned lies and statistics... ;-) > >Did I ever say that there was no development at all in the ActiveMQ > >project > >? > > > >That's not what I said. I talked about evolving the activemq 5 *core > >broker* > >code into a next generation broker for activemq 6, not about maintaining > >the activemq 5 broker and also not about adding additional protocols, > >persistence mechanism, etc...and certainly not about fixing bugs. > >When I write "*core broker*" explicitly, it rules out any non core > >components, which are more easily ported to a new broker implementation > >(see earlier points made by David Jencks). > > And this is the precise point I’m trying to make. You can couch these > things > in architectural components all you want, but the fact of the matter is > that Apache projects are more than their singular components. You can > claim that > you were only talking about the “core broker”, and that’s the thing that > would be “soon [sic] abandoned for a lack of committers working on the > core > broker.” The thing is whether it’s the ASF or not what you will find > developing > open source code for a long time is that certain parts of the code are > abandoned. > That happens in a long living project. New parts come in. The abandoned > parts > are picked by up again. This is the nature of software. Knowing this is the > nature of software is the reason that there is a PMC and not a “set of > software > developers” in each committee at the ASF. The PMC’s job and role is to > steward > the software - the board doesn’t care about things like parts of the code > being > abandoned and dying, etc. - these are reported each month in board reports > ( > ideally). The board cares about wholesale imports of codes from external > sources that have the perceived impact of abusing names, community > goodwill, > and appear to be dominated by a lack of diversity on the PMC. > > However, this is much more than simply a certain part of the code being > abandoned. > You and others continue to make the “crutch” that without the HornetQ > donation > that Apache ActiveMQ’s contributors would dry up and the project would be > at risk [implied]. My point in presenting the metrics to you and others is > that I highly doubt in my own long running experience at the ASF that a > project > that has been releasing as actively and with such activity would suddenly > dry > up on that activity. In fact, I know if the PMC was doing its job it > wouldn’t. > For example, releases are typically necessitated either by community > want/desire > and/or developer itch to scratch. If it’s the community end then there > appears > to be community desire around more than simply the broker that is in > question; > aka there are other parts of ActiveMQ; if it’s developer itch/scratch then > similarly the broker appears to not be the only reason that ActiveMQ is > released since there have been so many recently. > > > > >So we're talking about the next major version of the *core broker*. The > >attempt to write such a new broker was Apollo and it started in February > >2009. This kinda implies the *core broker* is mostly in maintenance mode > >since a few years. > > But the thing is - there is more to ActiveMQ than the core broker. > Otherwise > there wouldn’t have been a release in those few years, no? >
Exactly. And I don't think anyone proposed to ditch activemq 5 completely. It seems to me the plan was to bring the activemq5 components into the new code base so that merging the best of both worlds would lead to a larger community and a better software at the end. > > Cheers, > Chris > > > > > >I'm not sure how the situation would have recently changed and that people > >suddenly want to start writing a new broker now, but I'm certainly wrong > >as > >I can't back feelings and experience by shiny statistics. > > > > > > > >> Cheers, > >> Chris > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> >Cheers, > >> >Chris > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >>So pointing to RedHat for abusive trademarks use or violation simply > >>does > >> >>not make any sense to me. > >> >>So I don't see that there is anything to fix, but clarifying how the > >>code > >> >>currently located in the activemq6 git repository will be named, > >>either > >> >>activemq6 or something else, which can't be Apache HornetQ at this > >>point. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>2015-04-08 18:09 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <[email protected]>: > >> >> > >> >>> Hi Gary, > >> >>> > >> >>> Thanks. Well, we have a major problem then - see the > >> >>> subject of this email thread, and much of the discussion > >> >>> the last month. The discussion is one of these options: > >> >>> > >> >>> 1. Apache ActiveMQ has multiple products with multiple versions: > >> >>> a. ActiveMQ - (version 5.x.x) > >> >>> b. HornetQ - (which some are trying to call ActiveMQ version > >>6.x.x) > >> >>> > >> >>> 2. Apache ActiveMQ has 1 product with multiple versions: > >> >>> a. ActiveMQ (version 5.x.x and version 6.x.x) > >> >>> <—there is NOTHING in this option that mandates the current > >>HornetQ > >> >>> code becoming 6.x.x of ActiveMQ; also NOTHING stopping that. > >>Decision > >> >>> needs to be made. > >> >>> > >> >>> 3. Whatever is in the code repo now as ActiveMQ 6.x.x becomes > >> >>> Apache HornetQ (incubating) > >> >>> > >> >>> It sounds like you are taking 1b; and and 2a off the table. You > >> >>> are doing so, b/c Apache doesn’t accept code donations that are > >> >>> centered around names and trademarks that we don’t own; otherwise > >> >>> the product is renamed - the proposed renaming of it centers around > >> >>> abuse of trademarks since the proposed rename leverages an existing > >> >>> Apache product name. There hasn’t been work here to deal with the > >>due > >> >>> diligence of trademarks related to the HornetQ name. > >> >>> > >> >>> The community will need to have a plan for fixing that in its > >> >>> board report. I suggest working on that plan, rather than trying > >> >>> to correct my understanding. I also strongly suggest the community > >> >>> engage with trademarks@ and achieve something acceptable as I’m > >> >>> fairly sure that this isn’t. > >> >>> > >> >>> Cheers, > >> >>> Chris > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> -----Original Message----- > >> >>> From: Gary Tully <[email protected]> > >> >>> Reply-To: <[email protected]> > >> >>> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:56 AM > >> >>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > >> >>> Cc: <[email protected]> > >> >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation > >> >>> > >> >>> >Hi Chris, > >> >>> >on 1) there may be a misunderstanding here. The code grant is just > >> >>> >that, code. there is no trademark grant. There is no intention of > >> >>> >having apache hornetq, that is not an option with the code grant > >>that > >> >>> >we have. Part of ip clearance and cleanup was to remove all > >>references > >> >>> >to hornetq. 2(3) was the intent. > >> >>> > > >> >>> >cheers, > >> >>> >Gary. > >> >>> > > >> >>> >On 8 April 2015 at 15:46, Chris Mattmann <[email protected]> > >>wrote: > >> >>> >> Hi Everyone, > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> These are my following concerns as an ASF director that the > >>ActiveMQ > >> >>> >> community needs to address. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> 1. RH has a product, called HornetQ, which includes a website; > >> >>> >> branding, etc. http://hornetq.jboss.org/ > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> At a minimum this is an extreme branding confusion if this is > >> >>> >> ActiveMQ 6 and even more so if there is a HornetQ branch in an > >> >>> >> Apache code repo. We don’t allow companies to come into Apache > >>and > >> >>> >> create confusion by importing their *still existing* products > >>into > >> >>> >> our neutral zone at the ASF and then keep maintaining their > >>external > >> >>> >> websites and so forth. This needs to be rectified, ASAP. If > >>HornetQ > >> >>> >> exists in an Apache repo (which it does right now) - > >> >>>hornetq.jboss.org <http://hornetq.jboss.org> > >> >>> >> needs to go away at a date identified by the PMC in its next > >>board > >> >>> >> report. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> 2. The ActiveMQ PMC needs to deliver a plan for: (1) keeping the > >> >>> >>community > >> >>> >> as 1 project with multiple “products”; or (2) spinning out > >>HornetQ > >> >>>into > >> >>> >> Incubator or straight to TLP; or (3) keeping the community as 1 > >> >>>project > >> >>> >> with a single “product”. These are the only options. A choice > >>must > >> >>> >> be identified and made by the PMC in its next board report. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> I would strongly encourage the community also to think about the > >> >>> >> role of the PMC chair in all of this. To that point, the current > >> >>> >> chair has been the chair for *many* years and based on the > >>current > >> >>> >> status and issues in the community, I would strongly suggest > >>having > >> >>> >> a plan for potentially replacing the chair of the project. It’s a > >> >>> >> healthy thing to do and these community issues may be better > >> >>> >> identified by some fresh blood and energy. I fully expect the > >>above > >> >>> >> issues to be discussed, and identified between now and April 22 > >> >>> >> which is the next board meeting and the PMC’s report. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> Cheers, > >> >>> >> Chris > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >>> >> From: Greg Stein <[email protected]> > >> >>> >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> > >> >>> >> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 5:03 PM > >> >>> >> To: <[email protected]>, ActiveMQ-Developers > >> >>><[email protected]> > >> >>> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >>>Please note: earlier messages Jim has sent were as "Jim, the > >> >>>individual" > >> >>> >>>using his years of experience at Apache to review the situation, > >>and > >> >>>to > >> >>> >>>provide feedback. Chris Mattman has also been assisting lately; > >> >>>again, > >> >>> >>>as > >> >>> >>>"Chris, the individual". > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>>This message below is on **behalf of the Board**. Jim may have > >>been > >> >>>the > >> >>> >>>messenger, but what is happening in Apache ActiveMQ is now a > >> >>>specific > >> >>> >>>concern of the Board. As such, it needs to be addressed per Jim's > >> >>>note. > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>>Regards, > >> >>> >>>Greg Stein > >> >>> >>>ASF Director, and Vice Chairman > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>>On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> > >> >>>wrote: > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>>> I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an issue > >>which > >> >>> >>>> is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important > >> >>> >>>> project and community. > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> As such: > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going on in > >> >>> >>>>ActiveMQ. > >> >>> >>>> There appear to be two distinct factions under the same ASF > >> >>>umbrella > >> >>> >>>>of > >> >>> >>>> this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ"; > >> >>>another > >> >>> >>>>is > >> >>> >>>> the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared to > >>start > >> >>>off > >> >>> >>>> as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow > >>together, > >> >>>has > >> >>> >>>> instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power > >> >>>struggle. > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> The board is not happy about the current state of affairs. The > >>job > >> >>>of > >> >>> >>>> the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly > >>that > >> >>>job > >> >>> >>>>is > >> >>> >>>> not being done effectively. The board offers its help and > >>strongly > >> >>> >>>> encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more > >> >>>pro-active > >> >>> >>>> action is required by the board. > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ PMC > >> >>>and a > >> >>> >>>> roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious > >>project, > >> >>> >>>> or as 2 distinct projects. > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>>... > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >
