2015-04-08 22:52 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <[email protected]>: > This isn’t a flame war, and you continue to state things about > what’s going to be maintained and what’s not, and it’s not backed > by fact. Some comments below: > > > [...]
> > >[..] > >In this very case, I think this is a technical decision, and my trust > >clearly goes to the ones that know and wrote 90% of the code, and when > >they all seem to say the "hornetq" broker should replace the activemq 5 > >one, I don't see why I should give it > > any more second thoughts. > > > > > >I can try to be gentle and accept other solutions, such as a renaming and > >having 2 brokers. But I do very well know that one will be soon > >abandoned for a lack of committers working on the core broker. > >Maintaining the activemq 5 broker is fine, but I > > certainly fail to see how there will be an activemq 6 broker based on > >activemq 5 with major changes, if none of the committers on the broker > >are willing to work on it. > > > > > 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). 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. 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. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>>... > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
