-1 this intent was expressed a while ago and the result was keeping
HornetQ under the Artemis (sister of Apollo) name until such a time
where there is evidence of adoption and migration away from the 5.x.
ActiveMQ 5.x is very much in use and has much, much broader adoption
than Artemis. One interesting point (which makes the timing of this vote
quite suspicious) is the launch of an ActiveMQ 5.x service by AWS [1].
To me, this is a deja vu of using PR rather than technical merits to
prove the viability of a project.
I am all for the success of Artemis, but that has to be proven by
adoption, not by tricking the users in believing that this is a natural
upgrade from ActiveMQ 5.x.
Bruce, until the points of confusion are resolved, there is no point in
having this vote to pass (what?) a confusing resolution stating intent.
Let's deal in facts.
Again, strong -1.
Hadrian
On 12/06/2017 09:34 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially state
the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
concerns. For this I vote +1.
We must document this intent clearly on the website, stating that there is
no plan to deprecate ActiveMQ 5.x and explain that ActiveMQ 5.x development
line will continue. We also must make it very clear on the website that
ActiveMQ 6.x is not officially released yet. There are too many users who
will not upgrade their current environments easily (or possibly ever) and
we must not leave them in a lurch.
I agree that there are several points of confusion that must be addressed
and these need to be identified on a wiki page so that the project can work
through each of them. Also, more testing must be done to prove that all
ActiveMQ 5.x supported scenarios have been covered by Artemis, including
the migration of existing ActiveMQ 5.x configurations to Artemis (this
migration must be exhaustively documented).
Another topic that I think should be addressed is the version number that
is currently being used for Artemis as releasing it with a version of 2.x
sends a confusing messaging to the community.
To address the vendor version questions, such questions concerning vendor
products have zero bearing on the Apache ActiveMQ project and are not the
project's concern.
Bruce
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
wrote:
+1
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:33 PM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
ActiveMQ project roadmap"
linked here for convenience :
-
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-
surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
-
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-
Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
ActiveMQ 6.
[+1] - agree
[-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
[0] - neutral but go ahead
This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchir...@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
