+1 to 'Agree that the goal should be to work as a community to make
Artemis become ActiveMQ 6'
On 12/6/17 2:48 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
According to the ASF Voting page (
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html):
'Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless of
the number of votes in each category. '
However, given that there are some binding -1s, I believe it is in
everyone's best interest to stop this vote and prepare a plan to move
forward as a group.
In the interest of moving forward as a group, I have created a page
specifically for the Artemis Roadmap here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/ActiveMQ+Artemis+Roadmap
I encourage everyone to contribute to this page and discuss it in a
separate discussion thread on the dev@activemq list. I will start a
separate discussion for this topic now.
Bruce
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote:
@Justin,
In terms of consensus it depends on what it is with Apache. I know for
releases you just need a majority vote but for code modifications a -1 by a
PMC member is a veto.
In this case I'm not entirely sure but I think the -1 votes in this thread
would be considered a veto unless they are changed.
See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com
wrote:
@Jeff:
All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and future.
We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and release
whenever it was ready.
We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what would drive
people using it.. etc.. etc..
Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no adoption, and
there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at the
website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help at
all!!!).
If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on the
website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before
starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into
here).
Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these agenda
items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view on
where we will get.
So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis more
prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <jgenen...@apache.org> wrote:
There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying agenda
as
you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies.
Sorry,
just calling a spade a spade. Its definitely bringing back the
knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago. That's a shame
and
I really hope that is not the direction this is going.
This is a PR vote that also becomes technical. It's PR because some
folks
are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now. Its
technical
because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from
AMQ5.
I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic - whatever)
is
being deprecated", but guess what? Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means
its
the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the
old.
Remember AMQ3->4->5. Its an assumption that has been made on numerical
versions for a majority of software and this one in particular - that's
technical. It does make illusions of deprecation. So this is both PR
*and*
technical.
My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis ultimately
becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has
reasonable
compatibility with AMQ5. NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some basic
stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running AMQ5,
which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority of
our
community.
The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very
reasonable.
Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line
so
that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version. Why is that
viewed as so unreasonable?
I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming
and
vendors and versions. This is a problem because there is an agenda and
there is cross marketing going on. Look at this blog:
https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w
hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/
artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
Is it 2 or is it 7? Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ? This repo has a
numbering
with our name on it, but is it even our code? So when I hear people in
the
community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh? There is no
ActiveMQ 7". After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss
AMQ
7.
So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do
with
vendors, but lets be honest. This has everything to do with vendors
and
this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it. At the end of the day
and
in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with
this.
But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately
clouds
this immensely.
So I ask this. It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers
here
are
ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6. They are asking a
relative simple request: Can we please increase the community adoption
and
get it more compatible before renaming it? That makes this
non-technical
once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis == ActiveMQ
6.
IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in HornetQ
and
why it was named Artemis to begin with.
Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon when
bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and eat
it
too.
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404
.
html
--
Clebert Suconic
