This is why I suggested using explicit statements to clarify exactly what
is being voted on.
Bruce
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gary,
>
> That is precisely what folks vote -1 against. I hope you are not implying
> that the -1s should not be counted because you believe the -1s where for a
> different reason.
>
> Surely you must remember the same issue being raised and a vote called
> some 2 years ago if my memory serves me well (I can look it up if
> necessary). Exactly same vote, exactly same statement of intent. You know
> how that went. What changed to start it all over again?
>
> Can we agree that this vote is a PR/marketing play, not technology? This
> is not a vote for a controversial feature people can't agree on, nor on
> accepting an external contribution, nor a release vote. What is it?
>
> Some see Artemis as the future of ActiveMQ. Other gray beards see it as a
> project that needs to get more adoption an prove itself before it's clear
> that it can be the evolution of the current 5.x version that serves the
> market very well (proven yet again by AWS). No consensus yet.
>
> Hadrian
>
>
>
> On 12/06/2017 10:45 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <bruce.sny...@gmail.com> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> This was also my understanding and what I voted for.
>> Maybe the intent of the vote needs to be clarified.
>>
>> is this what folks voted against?
>>
>> gary.
>>
>>
--
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
