Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Artemis as TLP

I think having a divorce should be the last thing / option. Maybe some counselling first ( Bruce is doing a good job here I think), I'm sure as a community it can be worked out, it be a shame for such a break up. Sent from my iPad > On 7 Dec 2017, at 04:20, Hadrian Zbarcea

Re: Thoughts on refactoring the ActiveMQ website

Hi Bruce, As per the other mail thread, I'd like to put my hand up to this effort. I agree with comments around the site needing to live in GitHub so a more PR style and contribution approach can be had. Likewise +1 re markdown (or similar) , there will need to be some HTML obviously but

Thoughts on refactoring the ActiveMQ website

Several opinions have been expressed recently that the ActiveMQ website needs some attention and that Artemis should be made more prominent. I'd like to discuss some ideas to see what we could achieve on this topic. If we are going to make Artemis more prominent, the first concern I identified is

Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Artemis as TLP

Clebert, I'd suggest you don't go there. I do not imply, I state (facts or opinions). I do not represent other people's opinion, just my own. I am stating that Artemis is the evolution of the HornetQ donation to the ASF by RH. ActiveMQ has completely different origins. As such, I was

Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Artemis as TLP

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: > What am I saying? There you have the authority in the field :). > > John, the projects are in fact separated, Artemis is actually the donated > HornetQ project. It's not like 2 factions don't agree on the future of one

Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Artemis as TLP

What am I saying? There you have the authority in the field :). John, the projects are in fact separated, Artemis is actually the donated HornetQ project. It's not like 2 factions don't agree on the future of one project. It's more like some not buying into the idea of ActiveMQ being

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

On the website front I’m happy to stick my hand up, giving it an overhaul and design inline with the new logo. Mike Sent from my iPhone > On 6 Dec 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Snyder wrote: > > I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to take on > this

Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Artemis as TLP

No, no incubation. Just graduates as TLP. There would be a discussion to choose the new PMC and nominated chair. Resolution gets submitted to the board which ratifies it at the board meeting and... that's it. Freedom. I have a hunch that all the -1s would be in favor of such a proposal.

Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Artemis as TLP

The board receives agenda items to create a new TLP. I'm not sure that "graduation" is the right term, but more effectively "there is now a project, which will have resources transferred to it from the ActiveMQ project." Personally, while I'm usually the biggest one pushing for open and honest

Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Artemis as TLP

Would Artemis need to go through the incubator process to make this happen or could it immediately become its own TLP if that was agreed upon? On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: > Since Artemis has a kernel of developers had a few releases, and hard-core

[DISCUSS] Graduate Artemis as TLP

Since Artemis has a kernel of developers had a few releases, and hard-core Artemis believers want to be in control of their own destiny and they believe the project can be sustained on its own merits and have it's own awesome site, I propose that Artemis form its own PMC and start a vote to

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

That's why new project usually start in the incubator, whey they prove that they can govern, create a community and the like. HornetQ preferred to get inside ActiveMQ just because of the strong RH presence in the PMC. Last time this went all the way to the board (one board member called if a

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Some people are capable of working towards a goal without a vote. Back in the day hackers would get together get some beers and with a "wouldn't it be f* awesome if..." in mind would put something together quickly, talk with unfakeable passion about the stuff and help other geeks be

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Bruce, I see the page, but not the edit button. John On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:27 PM Bruce Snyder wrote: > John, as I stated, I did not put any restrictions on the page. None of us > has any special access to the wiki page, we just log in to the wiki and > click the

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Clebert, your goal should not be an ActiveMQ 6. IMHO totally short sighted. Why not shoot for making Artemis the best messaging system under the sun. It won't matter how it's called then. This kind of looks like desperation to get adoption via whatever means, screw the consequences for

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Clebert, nobody says to not promote it. Just promote it as what it is, ActiveMQ Artemis. You hope, and I believe you're well intended, is that the PR trick of calling it ActiveMQ 6 will drive adoption. But that won't be on its merit, but piggybacking on the ActiveMQ reputation. This point of

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

John, as I stated, I did not put any restrictions on the page. None of us has any special access to the wiki page, we just log in to the wiki and click the 'Edit' button. Are you not able to see the page? Are able to see the page but not the 'Edit' button? Bruce On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:22 PM,

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Can you check if "johndament" has edit access? On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:07 PM Bruce Snyder wrote: > I did not restrict the page. In looking at the page restrictions, there are > none so anyone with credentials for the wiki should be able to view and > edit it. > > Bruce

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

It seems to me that we should then move it... people who need can still follow up... it would be a nice compromise for everybody... Would we be ok to move github comments to the commit list? ( I think that't the list we should use). On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:45 PM, John D. Ament

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

>From the VP Incubator's standpoint (as well as infrequent ActiveMQ contributor) I see a lot of new projects coming on board, starting off with a dev@ list, getting the notifications there. With tools like github, since you're getting the notification personally (when it involves you) as well as

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

I'm sorry... just when we move forward, we take 2 steps back. Matt Pavlovich-2 wrote > I agree. I don't work for Red Hat either, but we do a ton of ActiveMQ > work and have products that support ActiveMQ. Artemis looks to be the > future and working to align the community to that end is a good

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

To echo the thoughts of Matt and Michael...I don't work for RH either so I agree with what others have said about not lumping everyone together. On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote: > I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to take on

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

@Daniel: that's a general issue at apache.. not just activemq... just looked now.. it's the same pattern everywhere... It would be nice if we could fix this rule in apache... PRs is a new thing.. and the rules needs to be updated... how/where do we go to have a wider discussion? On Wed, Dec 6,

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to take on this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more prominent on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a separate discussion around this. More discussions on the dev list is *always* a

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

I agree. I don't work for Red Hat either, but we do a ton of ActiveMQ work and have products that support ActiveMQ. Artemis looks to be the future and working to align the community to that end is a good thing imo.  +1 vote for the 'let's work to make it ActiveMQ 6' On 12/6/17 3:45 PM,

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

They are different though… A PR discussion is exactly that… a discussion. If there are things in the PR discussions like code suggestions and back and forth about opinions on how something is done and such, they SHOULD be on the dev list as they are dev discussions. The commit is more

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

You could use the same argument to have committs being fed here... it's too noisy! On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Timothy Bish wrote: > -1 > > Unless PR discussions can exist on the dev list I'm against moving that to > another list as that is part of the development

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote... I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from this thread: - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website. - Refactor the website... like.. now... with Artemis being brought forward.. (the website needs a facelift

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

-1 Unless PR discussions can exist on the dev list I'm against moving that to another list as that is part of the development process. On 12/06/2017 05:34 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: in my view... and in my plan... going forward now I plan to make more discussions on the dev list.. especially

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

in my view... and in my plan... going forward now I plan to make more discussions on the dev list.. especially around this Roadmap idea. What if: - We move github traffic to another list.. (commit perhaps)? - We can still use github to talk about spot on issues.. such as.. the format here

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

Daniel Kulp wrote > I’m -0.5 on moving them. PR’s (and the conversations in them) are part of > the development process and should be on the dev list. But the deluge often loses the discussion which is why some projects have commit lists. This is the difference between projects that work off

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

artnaseef wrote > Please don't get too discouraged. My vote personally was a request to > slow > down and discuss. I'm just not at a point where I'm ready for "ActiveMQ > Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6". > > We have this cycle of communication in which a vote goes out and generates > a > ton of

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

On 12/06/2017 05:04 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: I’m +1 on starting the process of updating the websites and such to promote Artemis more and working toward getting it ready to become 6. That definitely means getting a roadmap started (nice job Bruce!) and doing some level of gap analysis

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Daniel Kulp wrote > I personally think the “adoption argument” is bull shit. That’s like > saying the Tomcat community cannot release Tomcat 9 until the adoption of > "Tomcat 9 (beta)” becomes significant. That’s just dumb. So it really > comes down to features and documentation/migration.

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

I’m +1 on starting the process of updating the websites and such to promote Artemis more and working toward getting it ready to become 6. That definitely means getting a roadmap started (nice job Bruce!) and doing some level of gap analysis between it and AMQ5. I personally think the

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

I’m -0.5 on moving them. PR’s (and the conversations in them) are part of the development process and should be on the dev list. Dan > On Dec 6, 2017, at 10:00 AM, Clebert Suconic > wrote: > > Can we move the github PR discussions away to a different list... >

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Please don't get too discouraged. My vote personally was a request to slow down and discuss. I'm just not at a point where I'm ready for "ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6". We have this cycle of communication in which a vote goes out and generates a ton of discussion (often heated). Then we

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

I think the votes are aligned with Artemis. I do not work for RedHat. To have a broad brush statement like that everyone who voted +1 must work for the same company, please don’t tarnish my vote with the same brush. I work for a company that uses ActiveMQ as one of its message brokers and see

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

I didn’t mean to be negative or emotional.. sorry it’s being a hard day for me… all I want to clarify is if we would need 100% consensus in the future On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:34 PM, jgenender wrote: > clebertsuconic wrote >>> Lets make this project work in harmony for

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

clebertsuconic wrote >> Lets make this project work in harmony for everyone so we can work >> towards >> consensus for what is AMQ6 and when. > > Harmony and Unanimous consensus is something pretty rare in humanity. Thats a pretty sad view. Nobody said unanimous. Harmony is certainly not that

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

+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

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

> Lets make this project work in harmony for everyone so we can work towards > consensus for what is AMQ6 and when. Harmony and Unanimous consensus is something pretty rare in humanity. If you help promote Artemis, work towards the roadmap.. and everything.. there's still the question: 1 year,

Re: Artemis Roadmap

Thanks, Bruce! Justin On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote: > I have added the following statement to the first paragraph in the wiki > page: > > The overall objective for working toward feature parity between > ActiveMQ 5.x and Artemis is for Artemis

Re: Artemis Roadmap

Hi Bruce- +1 agree that getting a roadmap together is a good thing. I listed out a number of features out on the list a while back. I'll update to the wiki page with those notes. Thanks, Matt On 12/6/17 2:51 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote: I have created a page on the wiki for the Artemis Roadmap

Re: Artemis Roadmap

I have added the following statement to the first paragraph in the wiki page: The overall objective for working toward feature parity between ActiveMQ 5.x and Artemis is for Artemis to eventually become ActiveMQ 6.x. Bruce On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Justin Bertram

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

I did not restrict the page. In looking at the page restrictions, there are none so anyone with credentials for the wiki should be able to view and edit it. Bruce On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:56 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:48 PM Bruce Snyder

Re: Artemis Roadmap

Would it be possible to clarify what, if anything, will happen if Artemis achieves the described level of feature parity with ActiveMQ 5.x? In other words, what is the goal of Artemis' feature parity with 5.x? I think a broader road-map like that would really help the community as they could

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:48 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

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Consensus as I understand it the way it used here at Apache is the way its defined partially in the dictionary: "general agreement or concord; harmony." We don't have that here. Its pretty far from harmony. At this stage its somewhat moot and continuing down the path we are going in this

Artemis Roadmap

I have created a page on the wiki for the Artemis Roadmap here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/ActiveMQ+Artemis+Roadmap The goal of this page is stated at the top: to identify the outstanding issues that must be addressed by Artemis in order to achieve some level of feature

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

I see what you mean, Clebert. I think most of this is caused by the fundamental mismatch between a mailing list and a threaded forum. It's easy to filter the GitHub messages with an email client but impossible to filter via a web interface like Nabble. >From what I recall (trying to dig up the

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1691: ARTEMIS-1541 Make the JDBC Node Manager more r...

Github user franz1981 commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1691 @mtaylor The CI tests hasn't shown any regression due to this PR :+1: ---

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

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 --

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

I see what you're saying, Chris. My thought here is that consensus is consensus no matter what, but in some situations a veto can overrule. For this particular vote there appears to be consensus with an overruling veto. If those are the rules that's fine, but let's not say there isn't consensus

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

+1 to Clebert's comments on clarity. -- Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

@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

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

> > > If I wasn't part of the community.. I would leave now! Didn't write that well... I mean... when I looked at this page: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html It's not very friendly.. and not very attractive to people to be part of discussions.. if we have more

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

I don't really care personally if it's separated or not... All I'm trying to do is to make the list easier to be followed by people not following every single line change we do through github. Say, I just found ActiveMQ (or Artemis) on google... when I go to the discussion list, I find this

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

@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

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

> What changed to start it all over again? The answer to your question is not a secret. I kicked off a discussion on the user list about clarifying the ActiveMQ road-map based on interactions with confused users. This vote grew out of that discussion. > This is not a vote for a controversial

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

BRUCE!!! o/ Good to see you! Bruce Snyder wrote > I disagree with discussing or even considering anything the vendors want > to > do. Even when I worked for LogicBlaze and then IONA, I disagreed with > trying to drive our company agenda via the Apache ActiveMQ project. But > given that

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

We still have the commits list. It’s not listed st the website but it’s there. On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM Bruce Snyder wrote: > I can take it or leave it, doesn't matter to me because I can address it > via filtering. > > I will say that at one time, we did have a

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

I can take it or leave it, doesn't matter to me because I can address it via filtering. I will say that at one time, we did have a commits@activemq mailing list and it was nice to have those messages separate from the dev@activemq mailing list. I don't recall why the commits@activemq list went

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

I don't disagree with the technical reasons, I call this compatibility because it's about defining a very clear migration path and smoothing the effort involved from a user point of when migrating from ActiveMQ 5.x -> Artemis. In fact, I am going to step forward and start to define a roadmap for

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

+0, I'm fine with it either way. I currently use filters on my email which works for me but if people want to move PRs to another email address that's fine with me too. On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:24 PM, jgenender wrote: > +1 to Clebert. PR messages are like commit messages

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

+1 to Clebert. PR messages are like commit messages and they convolute important topics. Jeff -- Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

So any thoughts on how we can make sure important discussions, that deserve the full attention of the PMC, can be achieved? Really, on how we can meet everybody's needs... We've got the following positions, as I see it so far: 1. Keep all DISCUSS and VOTE in public on the DEV list, do NOT

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

I agree with Timothy. For all the same points. In my view all these notifications are dev discussion just some of it is occurring inline in GitHub, and having this pull that back to the dev discussion mail list is useful to keep a single place to see all. Sent from my iPhone > On 6 Dec 2017,

ActiveMQ stops unexpected

Hello there, I am trying to create a simple cluster with a hub and a spoke. When I use HTTP protocol to start the hub, everything works fine. ActiveMQ starts and I am able to bind the spoke to it. However when I start the hub under TCP, the ActiveMQ stops unexpected: 12/6/17 1:02:07.170 PM

[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #1687: ARTEMIS-1535 - settle delivery in same ...

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1687 ---

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Hadrian, inline On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 15:56 Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: > Gary, > > That is precisely what folks vote -1 against. That is what I wish to clarify but I presume you speak for your self here. > I hope you are not > implying that the -1s should not be counted

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

christopher.l.shannon wrote > Hadrian, > > In my opinion the AWS argument actually proves the point more than ever > that we need to clarify the status of the project. > > Amazon didn't consult anyone form this community as far as I am aware. > They probably chose to use 5.x precisely because

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1691: ARTEMIS-1541 Make the JDBC Node Manager more r...

Github user franz1981 commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1691 @mtaylor Please do not merge it yet: I need to run the CI tests first @mtaylor @jmesnil How it seems? ---

[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #1691: ARTEMIS-1541 Make the JDBC Node Manager...

GitHub user franz1981 opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1691 ARTEMIS-1541 Make the JDBC Node Manager more resilient on failures In order to make the JDBC Node Manager more resilient has been implemented: - lowered from SERIALIZABLE to

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

On 12/06/2017 11:08 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote: Hadrian, In my opinion the AWS argument actually proves the point more than ever that we need to clarify the status of the project. I fully understand your point, but first it has to be clarified internally, not externally. Ages ago it was

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Hadrian, In my opinion the AWS argument actually proves the point more than ever that we need to clarify the status of the project. Amazon didn't consult anyone form this community as far as I am aware. They probably chose to use 5.x precisely because they didn't know what the plan was with

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

On 12/06/2017 10:56 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote: Perhaps we need to clarify what is being proposed with very explicit statements and recast the vote? What would that change? Do you have any doubts that people understood what the vote is for and voted accordingly? Bruce

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

This is why I suggested using explicit statements to clarify exactly what is being voted on. Bruce On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: > Gary, > > That is precisely what folks vote -1 against. I hope you are not implying > that the -1s should not be

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Gary, That is precisely what folks vote -1 against. I hope you are not implying that the -1s should not be counted because you believe the -1s where for a different reason. Surely you must remember the same issue being raised and a vote called some 2 years ago if my memory serves me well (I

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Perhaps we need to clarify what is being proposed with very explicit statements and recast the vote? Bruce On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > That is what I voted for. 6.0 won't be released until concerns are > addressed, such as

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

That is what I voted for. 6.0 won't be released until concerns are addressed, such as backwards compatibility and migration. But we need to clarify to the users what the intentions are with Artemis. Right now if you go to the website it's not at all clear what the plan is. On Wed, Dec 6, 2017

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

Personally I don't see a need for this, I've been getting along quite fine with filters to sort things out, personally I'd say moving would make it more complicated to keep an eye on what's going on in the community On 12/06/2017 10:00 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote: Can we move the github PR

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder wrote: > My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially state > the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as > ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address >

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Mike, While I agree with most of what you state, I fail to see the relevance. When a user upgrades from project FOO version N to FOO version N+1, there is an expectation of reasonable backwards compatibility. Version N+1 may or may not be a complete rewrite, but rules of engagement are

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

-1 to making Artemis ActiveMQ 6 now. Art was pretty much dead on and I fully agree with Hadrian. Hadrian said it so I won't get into that level of detail, but until we see Artemis truly as a successor both due to adoption and workability with AMQ 5, I am not ready to see it change. I do want to

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Johan Edstrom wrote: > -1 Non binding for the same reasons. Rob has recast his vote for +1, considering that we won't release 6.x until migration documentation is clear for migration... look the following up emails. we are just talking about

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

-1 this intent was expressed a while ago and the result was keeping HornetQ under the Artemis (sister of Apollo) name until such a time where there is evidence of adoption and migration away from the 5.x. ActiveMQ 5.x is very much in use and has much, much broader adoption than Artemis. One

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

-1 Non binding for the same reasons. > On Dec 6, 2017, at 8:20 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: > > -1 > > agree with Rob > > Hadrian > > > On 12/05/2017 05:17 AM, Rob Davies wrote: >> [0] - without a clear migration path and tooling to assist existing users >> moving from

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

-1 agree with Rob Hadrian On 12/05/2017 05:17 AM, Rob Davies wrote: [0] - without a clear migration path and tooling to assist existing users moving from ActiveMQ 5 to Artemis, we risk abandoning those users - who may then be forced to look at alternatives and abandon ActiveMQ all

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

+1 Note that the actual list name comes up as "[hidden email]" in this post, so my vote is not for the name itself. With that said, cleaning up the DEV list - so that PRs, commit messages, and other auto-generated git notices do not distract - is most welcome. Art -- Sent from:

[DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

Can we move the github PR discussions away to a different list... I suggest we create a list called hack...@activemq.apache.org We could use it for all the github PRs notifications.. and eventually low level discussions. We should still keep general discussions on the dev list. That would

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1690: ARTEMIS-1523 Allow MQTT with dynamic cluster

Github user Skiler commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1690 Hi @jbertram This is the new pull request. It's possible to include this fix in the 2.4.0 version? Thanks ---

[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #1679: ARTEMIS-1523 Allow MQTT with dynamic cl...

Github user Skiler closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1679 ---

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1679: ARTEMIS-1523 Allow MQTT with dynamic cluster

Github user Skiler commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1679 I had some problemas with the squash, so I created a new pull request. https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1690 ---

[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #1690: ARTEMIS-1523 Allow MQTT with dynamic cl...

GitHub user Skiler opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1690 ARTEMIS-1523 Allow MQTT with dynamic cluster ARTEMIS-1523 Allow MQTT with dynamic cluster You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially state the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address concerns. For this I vote +1. We must document this intent clearly on the website,

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

+1 On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:33 PM Clebert Suconic wrote: > Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the > ActiveMQ project roadmap" > > linked here for convenience : > - >

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Art, I don't think anyone is planning to deprecate 5.x support right now. I think it will stick around for some time and it's fine to have both versions supported. Also, the JBoss name is not an Apache name, it is a RH product. It should have no effect on what the community here decides to use

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1688: ARTEMIS-1537 broker was less strict while relo...

Github user stanlyDoge commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1688 Thanks for your comment @jdanekrh ---

  1   2   >