@Robbie, I'm happy to contribute where I can as I do on many other projects. My recent works on AMQ has been around the broker and CCP client, I don't mean to limit where I contribute, those have just been where I've been active.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 2:24 PM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I see Justin as noting the minimal activity around these bits and > trying to illicit some clearer idea of the people actually still > intending to help maintain them going forward, in part as a means of > gauging whether its worth updating the site content for them. A thread > on dev@ specifically discussing their status seems the best way to do > that to me. > > Saying you see value in something is not someone saying they will help > maintain it. There being users is not someone saying they will help > maintain it. I see one person who might have said they intend to help > maintain things on the CPP side. Some other people have either said or > implied they wont be helping maintain them. I've avoided commenting in > the thread so far as that latter direction includes me. > > While I am commenting though..I think the 'there are users' argument > goes both ways and its in general nicer to let any users know the > actual state of things, once established. I believe components that > are not under active maintenance should be noted that way in some > fashion so its clear thats true, in case there are actually users > (nothing is stopping them continuing to use it regardless). If it > becomes clear thats the case, e.g it seems insuffcient folks actually > step forward to maintain something, then to me it doesnt seem > particularly different to the recent commits marking Apollo as > deprecated, or the LevelDB related stuff being marked deprecated in > the past as mentioned earlier in the thread. > > I dont think I'd consider a component maintained and releasable > without a site presence. Linking to old content for docs would be fine > though. > > Robbie > > On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 14:20, 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
