If we're just talking about the landing page saying ActiveMQ 5 "Classic"
then perhaps we change that so it's clear Classic isn't part of the official project name? Maybe like this (note I'm not loving this, but it's an idea): ActiveMQ 5 (The classic broker) Art On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 3:28 PM Arthur Naseef <a...@amlinv.com> wrote: > TLDR; my take here - we discussed making Artemis a TLP long ago, and we > chose this path. > > I see the naming can be confusing. And of course, there's the fact that > AMQ 5 is kinda stuck on major version number 5, but we have lived with that > up until now without significant problems. > > Was there some other important consideration going on? > > I'm going to go look at the web site now and see where the word "Classic" > is being used. > > Art > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 2:31 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> I disagree about the work/effort to go to a TLP. When we moved Karaf as >> TLP from Felix, it was pretty fast and straight forward. >> That’s true it’s a PMC decision, I would completely understand that some >> PMC members would prefer on the ActiveMQ "umbrella". >> >> Anyway, I give up on this thread, agree with Gary: let’s keep colocation >> on the ActiveMQ "umbrella". We will see what our users will do. >> >> I will still maintain and work on ActiveMQ, heading to new features and >> releases. I will request some helps for website refactoring/cleanup. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> > Le 19 mars 2021 à 21:21, Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> > >> > there is a huge amount of work being a TLP, duplicate work, it seems a >> > completely preposterous suggestion to me. >> > >> > I don't see problems if we can have clarity and appreciation for each >> > others work. >> > >> > We have come along way, today users have choice under the activemq >> > umbrella, there are now two openwire implementations; migration is an >> > option, a viable choice. >> > Let me give you all a concrete example: >> > - Selector aware virtual topics on artemis can work better than on >> > 5.x, that is what I was working on today. there is no need for the >> > selector cache plugin! >> > it is quite positive. alternatives are good and healthy. new >> > architectures present different possibilities. >> > >> > My personal feeling is that there is lots more in common that in >> > difference between the brokers, and our users will be one and the same >> > over time, or they will go elsewhere. >> > >> > I am delighted to see some activity on 5.x and look forward to seeing >> > how it evolves and being part of it. >> > >> > Let's not make extra work unless it is for very good reason. >> > Let's continue to co exist and let users decide what stream they want >> > to adopt or when. >> > >> > /gary >> > >> > On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 16:10, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> I agree. >> >> >> >> If no objection, I would start a vote to propose Artemis as TLP. >> >> >> >> Thoughts ? >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> JB >> >> >> >>> Le 19 mars 2021 à 17:00, Jonathan Gallimore < >> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >>> >> >>> I personally feel that renaming Classic to Leto has the potential to >> >>> further confuse people. I'd be +1 on Artemis becoming its own TLP. >> >>> >> >>> Jon >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 3:37 PM Christopher Shannon < >> >>> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> JB, >> >>>> >> >>>> Right, I am a user of both products also. I am still a heavy >> 5.x/Classic >> >>>> user but I also am still trying to get my project/team onto Artemis >> as well >> >>>> but migration is always slow. I'm also working quite heavily with >> Kafka now >> >>>> as well which has taken up a lot of my time and prevented me from >> having as >> >>>> much interaction with AMQ recently. Having a separate TLP does not >> stop >> >>>> anyone from contributing and using both projects but it does make >> things a >> >>>> lot easier I think in terms of naming, versioning, etc. I think it >> also >> >>>> just adds a lot more clarity for the users. Also, even as its own >> TLP, >> >>>> there is no reason why Artemis can't still have a goal to be feature >> >>>> compliant with ActiveMQ 5.x. >> >>>> >> >>>> A pretty good example about how things are confusing right now is >> Artemis >> >>>> has been advertised as the next generation but there has been a lot >> of >> >>>> discussion recently about 5.x release cycles, upgrading the >> datastore, JMS >> >>>> 2.0 upgrades, etc. Basically it looks like it is still being actively >> >>>> development (which it is) so a user might be pretty confused about >> which >> >>>> broker to pick and what is going on long term. >> >>>> >> >>>> Anyways, I can only speak for myself so maybe most people still >> think the >> >>>> two projects should stay together under 1 umbrella. If I am in the >> minority >> >>>> and most people want to keep everything together that is fine. >> >>>> >> >>>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 11:15 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre < >> j...@nanthrax.net> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Hi Chris, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I’m sharing the same feeling and analyze. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Even if I plan to work more on Artemis (first PR will happen soon >> ;)), >> >>>> the >> >>>>> current situation is what you describe: we have two communities. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> It’s not a bad thing IMHO, it happens in all projects, with time and >> >>>>> resulting of some decisions taken. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Regards >> >>>>> JB >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Le 19 mars 2021 à 16:02, Christopher Shannon < >> >>>>> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The real issue here is quite obvious and demonstrated over the last >> >>>>> several >> >>>>>> years and that is the goal isn't really agreed upon by everyone. >> Some >> >>>>>> people think the goal should be to make Artemis the next >> generation and >> >>>>>> others don't agree with that. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Personally, while I still think having one broker to rally upon and >> >>>> make >> >>>>>> the best broker possible (Artemis) should be the goal, the realist >> in >> >>>> me >> >>>>>> does not believe this will ever happen without significant push >> back >> >>>> from >> >>>>>> the members of the community that do not want this to happen. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Over the past couple of years my opinion has swayed now to simply >> >>>> making >> >>>>>> Artemis its own TLP. Even after 6 years we have 2 separate >> communities >> >>>>>> entirely. We basically have 2 independent projects with almost no >> >>>> overlap >> >>>>>> between developers and users so why not just make Artemis its own >> TLP? >> >>>> I >> >>>>>> really see no benefit of operating under the same umbrella anymore >> (I >> >>>>> guess >> >>>>>> maybe if you want to keep the branding) >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 10:57 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre < >> j...@nanthrax.net >> >>>>> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I understand the point. My main concern was in term of versioning >> (I >> >>>>> don’t >> >>>>>>> want to "block" ActiveMQ to do a 6, 7, 8 or whatever release). >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Sorry, but classic is something I don’t fully understand (maybe my >> >>>>> French >> >>>>>>> culture ;)). I don’t see what’s "classic" (or maybe in term of >> >>>>> "previous" >> >>>>>>> or "older") is. Maybe "vintage" (like classical music compare to >> house >> >>>>>>> music) ;) ? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> And, anyway, nobody is using "classic": for the users I know, >> they use >> >>>>>>> ActiveMQ and Artemis (not ActiveMQ Classic or ActiveMQ Artemis). >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> So, if you agree to have: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis < >> >>>> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis> >> >>>>> <http://activemq.apache.org/artemis < >> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/activemq < >> >>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/activemq> < >> >>>> http://activemq.apache.org/activemq >> >>>>> <http://activemq.apache.org/activemq>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I think it’s even better than introducing a new name, I agree. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Then, I’m changing the proposal/question: agree to use activemq >> and >> >>>>>>> Artemis on website ? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Regards >> >>>>>>> JB >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Le 19 mars 2021 à 15:48, Bruce Snyder <bruce.sny...@gmail.com >> >>>> <mailto: >> >>>>> bruce.sny...@gmail.com>> a écrit : >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Gary stated this well. I agree completely with all of his >> sentiments >> >>>>>>> here. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I don't see the point to introducing yet another name as this >> will >> >>>>> muddy >> >>>>>>>> these waters even further, not clarify them. Artemis was meant >> to be >> >>>> a >> >>>>>>> code >> >>>>>>>> name until it matched ActiveMQ enough to be a drop-in >> replacement. I >> >>>>>>> don't >> >>>>>>>> believe that this goal has been achieved yet, has it? Is this >> still >> >>>> an >> >>>>>>>> active goal? >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Classic is an appropriate and deliberate name that was being >> >>>> discussed >> >>>>> as >> >>>>>>>> far back as just prior to the HornetQ donation. If we start >> >>>> officially >> >>>>>>>> referring to it as ActiveMQ Classic, then we need to explain the >> >>>> intent >> >>>>>>>> behind this name via the website. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Agreed, the Classic stream needs a major version bump before >> those >> >>>>>>>> incompatible changes are introduced. Do this and move forward >> with >> >>>>> those >> >>>>>>>> incompatible changes. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Bruce >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 8:29 AM Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com >> >>>>> <mailto:gary.tu...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Hi JB, >> >>>>>>>>> I think "classic" is a good name precisely because of its >> meaning, >> >>>> it >> >>>>>>>>> reflects its value and is a good way to differentiate on the >> >>>> website. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> But I don't think the classic stream should be limited in >> >>>> versioning. >> >>>>>>>>> If for good reason (a new incompatible openwire version/storage >> >>>>>>>>> incompatible change/large config update) it needs a major >> version >> >>>>>>>>> increment, then go for it. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Artemis was always intended as a code name, a generic title, a >> >>>>>>>>> temporary moniker, till it could take on the activemq mantle, >> but it >> >>>>>>>>> does not have to be 6, it can be 10 or 20, or it can be ActiveMQ >> >>>>>>>>> Artemis. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I don't see any point in introducing another "brand" name, the >> >>>>>>>>> versioning will be sufficient if we want to consolidate on the >> >>>>>>>>> activemq name in the future, and the Artemis sub brand will be >> >>>>>>>>> sufficient if we don't. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> to speak to Lucas, the plan for Artemis is to be be a better >> >>>> ActiveMQ >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> kind regards, >> >>>>>>>>> gary. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 04:49, Jean-Baptiste Onofre < >> j...@nanthrax.net >> >>>>> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Like any Apache (and OpenSource) project, ActiveMQ "umbrella" >> >>>> project >> >>>>>>> is >> >>>>>>>>> living and roadmap evolves. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Justin is right with the project history, but I think the >> initial >> >>>>>>> target >> >>>>>>>>> to "replace" ActiveMQ with Artemis evolves, due to the users. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Personally, I’m saying still lot of ActiveMQ users, not >> planning to >> >>>>>>>>> change to Artemis, and even brand new installation starts with >> >>>>> ActiveMQ >> >>>>>>>>> (not Artemis). >> >>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, in term of features, there are some gaps between >> >>>>> ActiveMQ >> >>>>>>>>> and Artemis IMHO. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> I think the mistake was to create a separated repo for >> Artemis: if >> >>>>>>>>> Artemis was ActiveMQ "master" branch at the time of the >> donation, >> >>>>> then, >> >>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>> update would be straight forward. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> So, clearly, IMHO, we have two completed separated projects >> between >> >>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ and Artemis, because the communities (both users and >> >>>>>>> contributors) >> >>>>>>>>> are not the same. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> A possible path to that Artemis become Apache TLP (and so >> ActiveMQ >> >>>>>>>>> Artemis name), and ActiveMQ "classic" stays what he’s: Apache >> >>>>> ActiveMQ. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> If the PMC don’t want to "move" as a TLP, then we should at >> least >> >>>>> give >> >>>>>>>>> space for the two subprojects in the ActiveMQ umbrella and >> clearly >> >>>>>>> identify >> >>>>>>>>> who is what. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Regards >> >>>>>>>>>> JB >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Le 19 mars 2021 à 05:13, Tetreault, Lucas >> >>>>> <tetlu...@amazon.com.INVALID <mailto:tetlu...@amazon.com.INVALID> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> a écrit : >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Justin, >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the additional context. As a newcomer, it seems to >> me >> >>>>> like >> >>>>>>>>> both ActiveMQ "Classic" and Artemis are alive and well. 6 years >> and >> >>>> 2 >> >>>>>>> major >> >>>>>>>>> versions in to development, is the goal and focus for Artemis >> still >> >>>> on >> >>>>>>>>> feature parity and becoming ActiveMQ 6? >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>>>>>>>> Lucas >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-03-18, 8:38 PM, "Justin Bertram" < >> jbert...@apache.org >> >>>>> <mailto:jbert...@apache.org>> >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the >> organization. >> >>>> Do >> >>>>>>>>> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the >> >>>> sender >> >>>>>>> and >> >>>>>>>>> know the content is safe. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Lucas, >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure you've been around the ActiveMQ community for >> very >> >>>>>>>>> long or >> >>>>>>>>>>> maybe you have been and forgot some of the history. In any >> case, >> >>>>>>>>> I'll >> >>>>>>>>>>> summarize briefly. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Over a decade ago Hiram Chirino, one of the original ActiveMQ >> >>>>>>>>> developers >> >>>>>>>>>>> and chair of the ActiveMQ PMC at the time, created a new >> broker >> >>>>>>>>> under the >> >>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ banner named Apollo. It was designed on a >> non-blocking >> >>>>>>>>>>> architecture for much better performance than the existing >> >>>> ActiveMQ >> >>>>>>>>>>> architecture [1]. After ActiveMQ Apollo 1.0 was released the >> >>>> stated >> >>>>>>>>> goal of >> >>>>>>>>>>> this project was for it to eventually be integrated with the >> >>>>>>>>> mainline >> >>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ code-base and serve as its replacement [2]. This fact >> >>>> was >> >>>>>>>>>>> advertised on the ActiveMQ website although there are no >> longer >> >>>> any >> >>>>>>>>>>> references to that since the website was redesigned & updated >> a >> >>>>>>>>> year or so >> >>>>>>>>>>> ago. For whatever reason Apollo never acquired the critical >> mass >> >>>>>>>>> necessary >> >>>>>>>>>>> to replace mainline ActiveMQ. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Then about 6 years ago the HornetQ code-base was donated to >> the >> >>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ >> >>>>>>>>>>> community and that donation was accepted with the goal of >> >>>> creating >> >>>>>>>>> the next >> >>>>>>>>>>> generation ActiveMQ broker that would eventually become >> version >> >>>> 6. >> >>>>>>>>> Since >> >>>>>>>>>>> that time work has steadily progressed on the Artemis >> code-base >> >>>> to >> >>>>>>>>> bring >> >>>>>>>>>>> sufficient feature parity with mainline ActiveMQ to allow >> users >> >>>> to >> >>>>>>>>>>> transition. Again, this has been communicated via the website >> and >> >>>>>>>>> other >> >>>>>>>>>>> support channels for the last several years. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> For what it's worth, I hope that clarifies the current state >> of >> >>>>>>>>> affairs. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Justin >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> [1] >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2011/01/17/activemq-apollo-looking-impressive/ >> >>>>> < >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2011/01/17/activemq-apollo-looking-impressive/ >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> [2] >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>> https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2012/02/03/apache-apollo-1-0-released/ >> >>>>> < >> https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2012/02/03/apache-apollo-1-0-released/> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:02 PM Tetreault, Lucas >> >>>>>>>>>>> <tetlu...@amazon.com.invalid <mailto: >> tetlu...@amazon.com.invalid >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me like the core problem here is that there are >> two >> >>>>>>>>> distinct >> >>>>>>>>>>>> projects operating under one brand and it creates confusion. >> I >> >>>>> agree >> >>>>>>>>> with >> >>>>>>>>>>>> JB that the "ActiveMQ Classic" and "ActiveMQ 5" branding are >> not >> >>>>>>>>> ideal. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> However, I think that renaming it to ActiveMQ Leto will >> further >> >>>>>>>>> dilute the >> >>>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ brand and create more confusion for users. Why not >> just >> >>>>>>>>> "ActiveMQ" >> >>>>>>>>>>>> and "Artemis"? >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Lucas >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-03-18, 6:54 AM, "Jean-Baptiste Onofre" < >> j...@nanthrax.net >> >>>>> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the >> organization. >> >>>>> Do >> >>>>>>>>>>>> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm >> the >> >>>>> sender >> >>>>>>>>> and >> >>>>>>>>>>>> know the content is safe. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Justin, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I would rather to ActiveMQ Leto 5.17.0 (and then Leto 6.0 at >> >>>> some >> >>>>>>>>>>>> point). >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >> >>>>>>>>>>>> JB >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18 mars 2021 à 14:51, Justin Bertram < >> jbert...@apache.org >> >>>>> <mailto:jbert...@apache.org>> a >> >>>>>>>>>>>> écrit : >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not clear on the versioning you're proposing. Are you >> saying >> >>>>>>>>>>>> that the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> first release of this subproject would be ActiveMQ Leto 1.0? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Justin >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 7:46 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre < >> >>>>>>>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Robbie, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is about "classic". I understand the meaning but I >> >>>> think >> >>>>>>>>>>>> it’s not >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a good "tagging". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don’t want to focus on ActiveMQ 5.x, because it prevents >> us >> >>>> to >> >>>>>>> use >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> another versioning. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not ActiveMQ 6.0 that would be a new major ActiveMQ >> >>>> release. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. ActiveMQ 5.x is too restrictive for versioning >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Classic is not a good "naming/tagging". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why I’m proposing a new identified name. It means we >> >>>> would >> >>>>>>>>>>>> have: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Apache ActiveMQ Artemis >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Apache ActiveMQ Leto >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO, it’s two subprojects under the same "umbrella" (like >> we >> >>>>> have >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Camel >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> K, Camel Spring Boot, Camel Karaf, or Karaf runtime, Karaf >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Decanter, Karaf >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cave, etc). >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Each subproject deserves a clear naming. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> About the website, you got my point: I would like to get >> all >> >>>> wiki >> >>>>>>>>>>>> based >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources, update and clean it to push on a dedicated sub >> >>>> context >> >>>>>>>>>>>> of the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> website: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis < >> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/leto < >> >>>> http://activemq.apache.org/leto >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Each with its own announcement, download, documentation >> >>>>> resources. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18 mars 2021 à 12:19, Robbie Gemmell < >> >>>>> robbie.gemm...@gmail.com >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> a >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> écrit : >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 'classic' terminology on the homepage is used more as >> a >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description rather than a name to me, speaking to its >> quality >> >>>>> and >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vintage and in some small straightforward way. ActiveMQ 5 >> is >> >>>>> still >> >>>>>>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way the broker is referenced on the site as a whole so >> far as >> >>>> I >> >>>>>>>>>>>> see, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than ActiveMQ Classic. Essentially everywhere >> besides >> >>>> the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subdir name being 'classic' in the URL for grouping some >> of >> >>>> the >> >>>>>>>>>>>> newest >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> component pages. I dont think 'Leto' is particularly more >> >>>> useful >> >>>>>>>>>>>> than >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'classic' as a description, and especially not an >> improvement >> >>>>> for >> >>>>>>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subdir in the URL at this point. It would be quite the >> >>>> opposite >> >>>>>>>>>>>> for me >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personally, I think it would be a bad idea. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Changing the subdir on the site from 'classic' to >> something >> >>>> else >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simplistic and direct such as 5 or 5x or 5.x? Sure, I can >> see >> >>>>>>> that. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dropping the "Classic" description suffix from the >> central box >> >>>>> on >> >>>>>>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> homepage, leaving only the ActiveMQ 5 titling? By all >> means. >> >>>>> Leto? >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dont really see that being an improvement at this point at >> >>>> all. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On your other proposal of cleaning up mess, presumably >> that >> >>>>> means >> >>>>>>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mass of old 5.x wiki-derived pages on the site in the root >> >>>> (done >> >>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserve URLs during the site changeover I believe, over >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual-page redirects) that are rarely ever touched, >> and >> >>>>>>> moving >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such content into the subdir? Sounds great. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robbie >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 08:30, Jean-Baptiste Onofre < >> >>>>>>>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to bring on the table the naming of Apache >> >>>>> ActiveMQ. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think "Classic" is not a good name, and it doesn’t mean >> >>>>>>>>>>>> anything. I >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it would make more sense to have a generic name. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As we have Apache ActiveMQ Artemis, I would like to >> propose >> >>>>>>> Apache >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ Leto. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a cultural standpoint ;), Artemis is the Greek >> goddess >> >>>> of >> >>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hunt, the wilderness, wild animals, the Moon, and chastity. >> >>>>> Artemis >> >>>>>>>>>>>> is the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> daughter of Zeus and Leto, and the twin sister of Apollo. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As "ActiveMQ Classic" is "older" than Artemis, I propose >> to >> >>>>>>>>>>>> rename as >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache ActiveMQ Leto. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This name change won’t impact the code repository, it’s >> more >> >>>>> for >> >>>>>>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> website. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Related to that proposal, I would like to propose also to >> >>>>> create >> >>>>>>> a >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dedicated space for Leto: http://activemq.apache.org/leto >> < >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/leto> with a complete cleanup >> of >> >>>> the >> >>>>>>>>>>>> mess we >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have today (documentation, download page, announcements, >> etc). >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts ? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>> perl -e 'print >> >>>>>>>> >> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" >> >>>>> );' >> >>>>>>>> http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>
