Got it. I haven't used pull requests before, but that sounds great to me if others will find it a better workflow. Will those who don't use git be able to participate through the mail list interface? Some systems gave that kind of ability.
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016, 3:29 PM Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Jim Gomes <[email protected]> wrote: > > I was under the impression that all Apache development discussions occur > on > > the email list. > > As Justin Bertram Said, all PR comments are sent to the dev-list. > > What I'm really proposing, it's to be practical... to have something > concrete to talk about on top of the code. > > > > Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> I think this is pretty straightforward: > >> > >> i - it should relay on JMX or jolokia.. A common thing between both > >> Artemis and ActiveMQ > >> > >> ii - it should manage at least a single broker.. with some metrics... > >> > >> > >> iii - anything beyond that will just be a collaboration over the code. > >> > >> > >> The best way to discuss this IMO would be through a Pull Request.. > >> someone send an initial draft.. we can have some **technical** > >> discussion over of PR, and commit it as version 1... then > >> collaboratively this could be increased just as with anything else. > >> > >> > >> > >> I think we are clear from the previous discussions... and that's a > >> request I am making here, probably the third time... lets CTRL-Alt-Del > >> and start fresh... The issues we had are clear... and I see everybody > >> with a single goal here.. to have an integrated console that looks > >> like an Apache project, pretty and neat. > >> > >> > >> Once someone put a first version, we can only improve it from there. > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > I would suggest discussing the goals for such a console first. Is it > >> > intended to monitory just one broker instance or a whole network of > >> brokers? > >> > Should it manage just the brokers or other services? Should it rely on > >> JMX > >> > or something else? > >> > > >> > Then one can think about reusing and/or improving something that's > >> available > >> > or some other solution. > >> > > >> > The way this discuss goes, sounds to me like trying to push again for > >> > something that was rejected in the past and I suspect will not go > >> anywhere. > >> > > >> > My $0.02, > >> > Hadrian > >> > > >> > > >> > On 10/07/2016 06:41 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote: > >> >> > >> >> +1 on improving/adding a console. Providing a console out of the box > >> is a > >> >> massive win for user experience imo and something that I feel Artemis > >> >> would > >> >> greatly benefit from. Whether it's HawtIO or something else we > should > >> >> make > >> >> every effort to standardise across both 5.x and Artemis. > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Clebert Suconic > >> >> <[email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:57 AM, John D. Ament < > [email protected]> > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> @Hiram > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The website branding says otherwise (take a look at the top right > >> >>> > >> >>> corner). > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> That symbol on the top is just a link to the following: > >> >>> > >> >>> "Like hawtio? It’s part of a community of Red Hat projects. Learn > more > >> >>> about Red Hat and our open source communities:" > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> No other implications from what I see. > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Clebert Suconic > >> > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic >
