What are we doing with this thread? Trying to get individual commitments to putting time into some vague possibility of needed effort in the future?
Just reading this thread is discouraging. I long to be part of a community that works together to constructively solve problems - real problems. One of the last ActiveMQ efforts on which I offered to assist was a CVE in which I said I didn't have time to do all the work but would gladly help others. Nobody else stepped up to help and I ended up doing most of the work, with Christopher Shannon stepping up to wrap up the CVE management and release, IIRC. So if we are just looking to attack one another with "you don't help," we can stop - we've reached that place already. BTW, I have more than enough knowledge to help with the ActiveMQ-CPP project, so anyone looking at issues there can reach out to me and we can work *together* on it. NMS, I can also do, but I definitely have a much larger gap to getting NMS built and tested, especially since I really don't know C#. Give me a shout via email or on slack if you want to reach me. Art On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 9:02 AM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > To be clear Jamie, is this you saying you intend to help maintain the > CPP client going forward? > > On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 14:37, Jamie G. <jamie.goody...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I'm still alive - learning life as a new parent, slipping a little on > > reading all the threads for projects I contribute too (Apache, Linux > > Foundation, etc). > > > > In regards to contributing to CPP client, I picked on some issues > > there earlier in the year. Discovered that master branch was not the > > primary maintained branch. After some discussion its clearer how > > future maintenance, and bug fixes can occur. That information was not > > clear to find, it only became clear after rejected PRs. > > > > Given its not always clear what is happening with a sub project if its > > not very active, clear readmes and docs are very nice to have. I would > > like to see them stay, minimally as APIs. > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:50 AM jgenender <jgenen...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > Justin, what seems to be the problem? Not everyone follows every > thread, so > > > they don't always speak up. They don't have to. The JIRA and > comments in > > > past threads speak for themselves. I am simply pointing that out. > > > > > > It seems like you are trying to kill this. You have had a couple of > people > > > say there is value. If you want to cut the web part of it because its > a > > > PITA, thats fine by me. But the APIs as projects should stay. If you > want > > > to link back to old doc, so be it. > > > > > > -1 from me to removing those code bases. I am open to leaving them as > a > > > sub-project for code only with a nice readme.md. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sent from: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html >
