Hi I'm a bit surprised by this vote.
Generally, at Apache, we start with a discussion, towards consensus. A vote happens only if we are not able to get consensus easily. We had discussions on the PR, and I suggested starting a discussion on the dev@, especially to identify the activemq-protobuf consumer. I'm not against it, but I would start with a discussion (like [DISCUSS] or [PROPOSAL]) instead of a vote. Regards JB On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 3:57 PM Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> wrote: > The activemq-protobuf project was split out from the main line project a > while ago and I don’t think it serves the project having it split out. > > 1. It is more work to maintain an independent module that is rarely used > by any other project (JDK alignment, Maven modules, release, vote, issues, > etc) > see: > https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.activemq.protobuf/activemq-protobuf/1.1 > > Note: The next release would automatically signal an upgrade to any > consumer of this jar by the version number being higher than the current > > 2. Having this hosted will allow us to more quickly experiment and modify > the broker for any datastore changes that need to be made— changes to > activemq-protobuf and other activemq-* modules may need to be merged > together for feature changes vs ‘guessing’ if a design works in > activemq-protobuf, releasing and then changing the main broker modules. > > PR discussion here: > https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/1209 > > Here is my +1 (binding) > > -Matt Pavlovich
