[VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
80 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

clebertsuconic
Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
ActiveMQ project roadmap"

linked here for convenience :
- http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
- http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html


I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming ActiveMQ 6.

[+1] -  agree
[-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
[0] - neutral but go ahead

This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.

Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

MichaelAndrePearce
+1 (non-binding)

Cheers
Mike

> On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>
> linked here for convenience :
> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>
>
> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming ActiveMQ 6.
>
> [+1] -  agree
> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>
> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>
> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Francois Papon
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
+1 (non-binding)

Francois


Le 05/12/2017 à 00:32, Clebert Suconic a écrit :

> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>
> linked here for convenience :
> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>
>
> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming ActiveMQ 6.
>
> [+1] -  agree
> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>
> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>
> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

nigro_franz
+1 (non-binding)


Il giorno mar 5 dic 2017 alle ore 04:17 Francois Papon <
[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Francois
>
>
> Le 05/12/2017 à 00:32, Clebert Suconic a écrit :
> > Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> > ActiveMQ project roadmap"
> >
> > linked here for convenience :
> > -
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> > -
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
> >
> >
> > I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
> ActiveMQ 6.
> >
> > [+1] -  agree
> > [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> > [0] - neutral but go ahead
> >
> > This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
> >
> > Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

gtully
+1

On 5 Dec 2017 7:59 am, "Francesco Nigro" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
>
> Il giorno mar 5 dic 2017 alle ore 04:17 Francois Papon <
> [hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > Francois
> >
> >
> > Le 05/12/2017 à 00:32, Clebert Suconic a écrit :
> > > Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> > > ActiveMQ project roadmap"
> > >
> > > linked here for convenience :
> > > -
> > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-
> surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> > > -
> > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-
> Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
> > >
> > >
> > > I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
> > ActiveMQ 6.
> > >
> > > [+1] -  agree
> > > [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> > > [0] - neutral but go ahead
> > >
> > > This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
> > >
> > > Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

rajdavies
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
[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 together. This could be counter productive to the original intent.



> On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>
> linked here for convenience :
> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>
>
> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming ActiveMQ 6.
>
> [+1] -  agree
> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>
> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>
> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

clebertsuconic
Point taken.  We should improve the migration doc the best we can.

If we make this a blocking/mandatory task before a 6 release, would you
consider changing your vote to +1. (I would add this remark to the closing
vote and would add a blocking/mandatory JIRA so it wouldn’t be released
without working on it)

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:17 AM Rob Davies <[hidden email]> 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
> together. This could be counter productive to the original intent.
>
>
>
> > On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> > ActiveMQ project roadmap"
> >
> > linked here for convenience :
> > -
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> > -
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
> >
> >
> > I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
> ActiveMQ 6.
> >
> > [+1] -  agree
> > [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> > [0] - neutral but go ahead
> >
> > This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
> >
> > Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
>
> --
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

rajdavies
Sounds good - I recast my vote to +1


> On 5 Dec 2017, at 13:18, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Point taken.  We should improve the migration doc the best we can.
>
> If we make this a blocking/mandatory task before a 6 release, would you
> consider changing your vote to +1. (I would add this remark to the closing
> vote and would add a blocking/mandatory JIRA so it wouldn’t be released
> without working on it)
>
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:17 AM Rob Davies <[hidden email]> 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
>> together. This could be counter productive to the original intent.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
>>> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>>>
>>> linked here for convenience :
>>> -
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
>>> -
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
>> ActiveMQ 6.
>>>
>>> [+1] -  agree
>>> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
>>> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>>>
>>> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>>>
>>> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
>>
>> --
> Clebert Suconic

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

christopher.l.shannon
+1, This would probably be a good time to update the website to a more
modern design as well

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Rob Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sounds good - I recast my vote to +1
>
>
> > On 5 Dec 2017, at 13:18, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Point taken.  We should improve the migration doc the best we can.
> >
> > If we make this a blocking/mandatory task before a 6 release, would you
> > consider changing your vote to +1. (I would add this remark to the
> closing
> > vote and would add a blocking/mandatory JIRA so it wouldn’t be released
> > without working on it)
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:17 AM Rob Davies <[hidden email]> 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
> >> together. This could be counter productive to the original intent.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> >>> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
> >>>
> >>> linked here for convenience :
> >>> -
> >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-
> surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> >>> -
> >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-
> Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
> >> ActiveMQ 6.
> >>>
> >>> [+1] -  agree
> >>> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> >>> [0] - neutral but go ahead
> >>>
> >>> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
> >>>
> >>> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
> >>
> >> --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

tabish121@gmail.com
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
+1

On 12/04/2017 03:32 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:

> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>
> linked here for convenience :
> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>
>
> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming ActiveMQ 6.
>
> [+1] -  agree
> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>
> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>
> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
>

--
Tim Bish
twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

gaohoward
+1

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
>
> On 12/04/2017 03:32 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
>> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
>> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>>
>> linked here for convenience :
>> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surr
>> ounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
>> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-
>> surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>>
>>
>> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
>> ActiveMQ 6.
>>
>> [+1] -  agree
>> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
>> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>>
>> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>>
>> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
>>
>>
> --
> Tim Bish
> twitter: @tabish121
> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

artnaseef
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
-1  I think we need to slow down.

While the referenced discussion opened the possibility of unifying on a
single broker, there's a lot more to discuss before that decision is made.
Naming Artemis as ActiveMQ 6 implies to the community that we are
deprecating AMQ 5 now.

For example, the assertion that "I think all the features are covered at
this point" shows a lack of clarity itself.  If we were truly methodical,
then we would have a list of criteria needed for Artemis to take the name
ActiveMQ 6.

ActiveMQ is an important asset to the communities it serves, and it deserves
the greatest of attention and care.

Questions coming to mind for making this decision:
* What is the full list of features needed?
* How much adoption does Artemis have?
* How stable is Artemis?
* What features will be dropped?  Scheduler?  HTTP endpoints?  ...

Just today I ran into the following bug the hard way:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1022.

Notice it's still open after more than 8 months.  It impacts OpenWire
support, which is critical to me as we want the most straight-forward
transition for customers as possible.

Please start to enumerate these points.

BTW, on the confusion front, since "JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo and "JBoss AMQ 7"
is Artemis, I think renaming Artemis to ActiveMQ 6 will create even more
confusion.

ALSO - one big point.  This DEV list is hard to follow now thanks to the
vast majority of messages being commit messages, and while I 100% agree with
having this discussion on the DEV list, the PMC needs to be made aware of
these discussions and votes on the PMC list.

I'll post the link there now.





--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

MichaelAndrePearce
Based on the Dev discussion linked I believe this vote was more making the direction and future clearer for users, its not deprecating overnight 5.x, but simply clearing up what is ActiveMQ 6 going to be.


On your commends about JBoss.

I don’t think vendor versions should come in here. Apache projects and its versions should have their own lifecycle not influenced by what vendors re-packing and supporting apache projects are doing. This is an Apache Project, NOT a RedHat/JBoss project.

Many other apache products which have vendors releasing their own versions, such as:

Apache Hadoop (HDFS) with Hortonwork, Cloudera, MAPR
Apache Kafka with Confluent
Apache Ignite with GridGain

They all have versions that conflict and/or are different with the upstream Apache projects.

On that note re your comment ""JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo" whilst I’m not a RedHat person/employee so I cannot be an official source (I work for a company that uses both ActiveMQ as some of its message brokers), but from their documentation available publicly on their site, JBOSS AMQ 6 is based on ActiveMQ 5.X.

Saying this and re-iterating my previous comment, Apache versioning should be agnostic to what vendors are versioning and shouldn’t come into this discussion IMO.

On that note to the same cord, i think it may answer a little your question re adoption if RH are releasing their vendor product based on it switching from it seems 5.X to Artemis shows that the maturity/adoptions of Artemis, they would obviously have customers using it, and others transitioning from their previous version.

Whilst on Adoption, I’m aware that:

* Spring Framework already has support for ActiveMQ Artemis, its one of the options within Spring Boot, along side Rabbit, Kafka and ActiveMQ 5.X (https://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/current/reference/html/boot-features-messaging.html)
* WildFly is using it reading their docs (https://docs.jboss.org/author/display/WFLY10/Messaging+configuration)
* Other open source projects are building / adopting on it:
 * OpenIoE -> https://github.com/scorelab/OpenIoE
 * Enmasse.io -> http://enmasse.io

Cheers
Mike










> On 6 Dec 2017, at 03:51, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> -1  I think we need to slow down.
>
> While the referenced discussion opened the possibility of unifying on a
> single broker, there's a lot more to discuss before that decision is made.
> Naming Artemis as ActiveMQ 6 implies to the community that we are
> deprecating AMQ 5 now.
>
> For example, the assertion that "I think all the features are covered at
> this point" shows a lack of clarity itself.  If we were truly methodical,
> then we would have a list of criteria needed for Artemis to take the name
> ActiveMQ 6.
>
> ActiveMQ is an important asset to the communities it serves, and it deserves
> the greatest of attention and care.
>
> Questions coming to mind for making this decision:
> * What is the full list of features needed?
> * How much adoption does Artemis have?
> * How stable is Artemis?
> * What features will be dropped?  Scheduler?  HTTP endpoints?  ...
>
> Just today I ran into the following bug the hard way:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1022.
>
> Notice it's still open after more than 8 months.  It impacts OpenWire
> support, which is critical to me as we want the most straight-forward
> transition for customers as possible.
>
> Please start to enumerate these points.
>
> BTW, on the confusion front, since "JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo and "JBoss AMQ 7"
> is Artemis, I think renaming Artemis to ActiveMQ 6 will create even more
> confusion.
>
> ALSO - one big point.  This DEV list is hard to follow now thanks to the
> vast majority of messages being commit messages, and while I 100% agree with
> having this discussion on the DEV list, the PMC needs to be made aware of
> these discussions and votes on the PMC list.
>
> I'll post the link there now.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Martyn Taylor
+1.

From my understanding, this vote is outlining the intent going forward, not
necessarily the details of how we get there.  I agree there are some
discussions to be had over the details, e.g. what this might look and what
needs to be done in order to facilitate our existing user base.  But I
think we need a clear vision before we can set out a road map of how to get
there.

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Michael André Pearce <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Based on the Dev discussion linked I believe this vote was more making the
> direction and future clearer for users, its not deprecating overnight 5.x,
> but simply clearing up what is ActiveMQ 6 going to be.
>
>
> On your commends about JBoss.
>
> I don’t think vendor versions should come in here. Apache projects and its
> versions should have their own lifecycle not influenced by what vendors
> re-packing and supporting apache projects are doing. This is an Apache
> Project, NOT a RedHat/JBoss project.
>
> Many other apache products which have vendors releasing their own
> versions, such as:
>
> Apache Hadoop (HDFS) with Hortonwork, Cloudera, MAPR
> Apache Kafka with Confluent
> Apache Ignite with GridGain
>
> They all have versions that conflict and/or are different with the
> upstream Apache projects.
>
> On that note re your comment ""JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo" whilst I’m not a
> RedHat person/employee so I cannot be an official source (I work for a
> company that uses both ActiveMQ as some of its message brokers), but from
> their documentation available publicly on their site, JBOSS AMQ 6 is based
> on ActiveMQ 5.X.
>
> Saying this and re-iterating my previous comment, Apache versioning should
> be agnostic to what vendors are versioning and shouldn’t come into this
> discussion IMO.
>
> On that note to the same cord, i think it may answer a little your
> question re adoption if RH are releasing their vendor product based on it
> switching from it seems 5.X to Artemis shows that the maturity/adoptions of
> Artemis, they would obviously have customers using it, and others
> transitioning from their previous version.
>
> Whilst on Adoption, I’m aware that:
>
> * Spring Framework already has support for ActiveMQ Artemis, its one of
> the options within Spring Boot, along side Rabbit, Kafka and ActiveMQ 5.X (
> https://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/current/
> reference/html/boot-features-messaging.html)
> * WildFly is using it reading their docs (https://docs.jboss.org/
> author/display/WFLY10/Messaging+configuration)
> * Other open source projects are building / adopting on it:
>  * OpenIoE -> https://github.com/scorelab/OpenIoE
>  * Enmasse.io -> http://enmasse.io
>
> Cheers
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6 Dec 2017, at 03:51, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > -1  I think we need to slow down.
> >
> > While the referenced discussion opened the possibility of unifying on a
> > single broker, there's a lot more to discuss before that decision is
> made.
> > Naming Artemis as ActiveMQ 6 implies to the community that we are
> > deprecating AMQ 5 now.
> >
> > For example, the assertion that "I think all the features are covered at
> > this point" shows a lack of clarity itself.  If we were truly methodical,
> > then we would have a list of criteria needed for Artemis to take the name
> > ActiveMQ 6.
> >
> > ActiveMQ is an important asset to the communities it serves, and it
> deserves
> > the greatest of attention and care.
> >
> > Questions coming to mind for making this decision:
> > * What is the full list of features needed?
> > * How much adoption does Artemis have?
> > * How stable is Artemis?
> > * What features will be dropped?  Scheduler?  HTTP endpoints?  ...
> >
> > Just today I ran into the following bug the hard way:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1022.
> >
> > Notice it's still open after more than 8 months.  It impacts OpenWire
> > support, which is critical to me as we want the most straight-forward
> > transition for customers as possible.
> >
> > Please start to enumerate these points.
> >
> > BTW, on the confusion front, since "JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo and "JBoss
> AMQ 7"
> > is Artemis, I think renaming Artemis to ActiveMQ 6 will create even more
> > confusion.
> >
> > ALSO - one big point.  This DEV list is hard to follow now thanks to the
> > vast majority of messages being commit messages, and while I 100% agree
> with
> > having this discussion on the DEV list, the PMC needs to be made aware of
> > these discussions and votes on the PMC list.
> >
> > I'll post the link there now.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-
> f2368404.html
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

christopher.l.shannon
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 for version
numbers.



On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:34 AM, Martyn Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1.
>
> From my understanding, this vote is outlining the intent going forward, not
> necessarily the details of how we get there.  I agree there are some
> discussions to be had over the details, e.g. what this might look and what
> needs to be done in order to facilitate our existing user base.  But I
> think we need a clear vision before we can set out a road map of how to get
> there.
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Michael André Pearce <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Based on the Dev discussion linked I believe this vote was more making
> the
> > direction and future clearer for users, its not deprecating overnight
> 5.x,
> > but simply clearing up what is ActiveMQ 6 going to be.
> >
> >
> > On your commends about JBoss.
> >
> > I don’t think vendor versions should come in here. Apache projects and
> its
> > versions should have their own lifecycle not influenced by what vendors
> > re-packing and supporting apache projects are doing. This is an Apache
> > Project, NOT a RedHat/JBoss project.
> >
> > Many other apache products which have vendors releasing their own
> > versions, such as:
> >
> > Apache Hadoop (HDFS) with Hortonwork, Cloudera, MAPR
> > Apache Kafka with Confluent
> > Apache Ignite with GridGain
> >
> > They all have versions that conflict and/or are different with the
> > upstream Apache projects.
> >
> > On that note re your comment ""JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo" whilst I’m not a
> > RedHat person/employee so I cannot be an official source (I work for a
> > company that uses both ActiveMQ as some of its message brokers), but from
> > their documentation available publicly on their site, JBOSS AMQ 6 is
> based
> > on ActiveMQ 5.X.
> >
> > Saying this and re-iterating my previous comment, Apache versioning
> should
> > be agnostic to what vendors are versioning and shouldn’t come into this
> > discussion IMO.
> >
> > On that note to the same cord, i think it may answer a little your
> > question re adoption if RH are releasing their vendor product based on it
> > switching from it seems 5.X to Artemis shows that the maturity/adoptions
> of
> > Artemis, they would obviously have customers using it, and others
> > transitioning from their previous version.
> >
> > Whilst on Adoption, I’m aware that:
> >
> > * Spring Framework already has support for ActiveMQ Artemis, its one of
> > the options within Spring Boot, along side Rabbit, Kafka and ActiveMQ
> 5.X (
> > https://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/current/
> > reference/html/boot-features-messaging.html)
> > * WildFly is using it reading their docs (https://docs.jboss.org/
> > author/display/WFLY10/Messaging+configuration)
> > * Other open source projects are building / adopting on it:
> >  * OpenIoE -> https://github.com/scorelab/OpenIoE
> >  * Enmasse.io -> http://enmasse.io
> >
> > Cheers
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 6 Dec 2017, at 03:51, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > -1  I think we need to slow down.
> > >
> > > While the referenced discussion opened the possibility of unifying on a
> > > single broker, there's a lot more to discuss before that decision is
> > made.
> > > Naming Artemis as ActiveMQ 6 implies to the community that we are
> > > deprecating AMQ 5 now.
> > >
> > > For example, the assertion that "I think all the features are covered
> at
> > > this point" shows a lack of clarity itself.  If we were truly
> methodical,
> > > then we would have a list of criteria needed for Artemis to take the
> name
> > > ActiveMQ 6.
> > >
> > > ActiveMQ is an important asset to the communities it serves, and it
> > deserves
> > > the greatest of attention and care.
> > >
> > > Questions coming to mind for making this decision:
> > > * What is the full list of features needed?
> > > * How much adoption does Artemis have?
> > > * How stable is Artemis?
> > > * What features will be dropped?  Scheduler?  HTTP endpoints?  ...
> > >
> > > Just today I ran into the following bug the hard way:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1022.
> > >
> > > Notice it's still open after more than 8 months.  It impacts OpenWire
> > > support, which is critical to me as we want the most straight-forward
> > > transition for customers as possible.
> > >
> > > Please start to enumerate these points.
> > >
> > > BTW, on the confusion front, since "JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo and "JBoss
> > AMQ 7"
> > > is Artemis, I think renaming Artemis to ActiveMQ 6 will create even
> more
> > > confusion.
> > >
> > > ALSO - one big point.  This DEV list is hard to follow now thanks to
> the
> > > vast majority of messages being commit messages, and while I 100% agree
> > with
> > > having this discussion on the DEV list, the PMC needs to be made aware
> of
> > > these discussions and votes on the PMC list.
> > >
> > > I'll post the link there now.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-
> > f2368404.html
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

chirino
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
+1

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:33 PM Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>
> linked here for convenience :
> -
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> -
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>
>
> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
> ActiveMQ 6.
>
> [+1] -  agree
> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>
> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>
> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
>
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Bruce Snyder
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, stating that there is
no plan to deprecate ActiveMQ 5.x and explain that ActiveMQ 5.x development
line will continue. We also must make it very clear on the website that
ActiveMQ 6.x is not officially released yet. There are too many users who
will not upgrade their current environments easily (or possibly ever) and
we must not leave them in a lurch.

I agree that there are several points of confusion that must be addressed
and these need to be identified on a wiki page so that the project can work
through each of them. Also, more testing must be done to prove that all
ActiveMQ 5.x supported scenarios have been covered by Artemis, including
the migration of existing ActiveMQ 5.x configurations to Artemis (this
migration must be exhaustively documented).

Another topic that I think should be addressed is the version number that
is currently being used for Artemis as releasing it with a version of 2.x
sends a confusing messaging to the community.

To address the vendor version questions, such questions concerning vendor
products have zero bearing on the Apache ActiveMQ project and are not the
project's concern.

Bruce

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> +1
>
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:33 PM Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> > ActiveMQ project roadmap"
> >
> > linked here for convenience :
> > -
> > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-
> surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> > -
> > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-
> Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
> >
> >
> > I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
> > ActiveMQ 6.
> >
> > [+1] -  agree
> > [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> > [0] - neutral but go ahead
> >
> > This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
> >
> > Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
> >
> --
> Hiram Chirino
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>



--
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'

ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by rajdavies
-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 together. This could be counter productive to the original intent.
>
>
>
>> On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
>> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>>
>> linked here for convenience :
>> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
>> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>>
>>
>> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming ActiveMQ 6.
>>
>> [+1] -  agree
>> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
>> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>>
>> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>>
>> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

seijoed
-1 Non binding for the same reasons.

> On Dec 6, 2017, at 8:20 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> 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 ActiveMQ 5 to Artemis, we risk abandoning those  users - who may then be forced to look at alternatives and abandon ActiveMQ all together. This could be counter productive to the original intent.
>>> On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
>>> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>>>
>>> linked here for convenience :
>>> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
>>> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming ActiveMQ 6.
>>>
>>> [+1] -  agree
>>> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
>>> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>>>
>>> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>>>
>>> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by Bruce Snyder
-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 interesting point (which makes the timing of this vote
quite suspicious) is the launch of an ActiveMQ 5.x service by AWS [1].
To me, this is a deja vu of using PR rather than technical merits to
prove the viability of a project.

I am all for the success of Artemis, but that has to be proven by
adoption, not by tricking the users in believing that this is a natural
upgrade from ActiveMQ 5.x.

Bruce, until the points of confusion are resolved, there is no point in
having this vote to pass (what?) a confusing resolution stating intent.
Let's deal in facts.

Again, strong -1.
Hadrian


On 12/06/2017 09:34 AM, 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
> concerns. For this I vote +1.
>
> We must document this intent clearly on the website, stating that there is
> no plan to deprecate ActiveMQ 5.x and explain that ActiveMQ 5.x development
> line will continue. We also must make it very clear on the website that
> ActiveMQ 6.x is not officially released yet. There are too many users who
> will not upgrade their current environments easily (or possibly ever) and
> we must not leave them in a lurch.
>
> I agree that there are several points of confusion that must be addressed
> and these need to be identified on a wiki page so that the project can work
> through each of them. Also, more testing must be done to prove that all
> ActiveMQ 5.x supported scenarios have been covered by Artemis, including
> the migration of existing ActiveMQ 5.x configurations to Artemis (this
> migration must be exhaustively documented).
>
> Another topic that I think should be addressed is the version number that
> is currently being used for Artemis as releasing it with a version of 2.x
> sends a confusing messaging to the community.
>
> To address the vendor version questions, such questions concerning vendor
> products have zero bearing on the Apache ActiveMQ project and are not the
> project's concern.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:33 PM Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
>>> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>>>
>>> linked here for convenience :
>>> -
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-
>> surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
>>> -
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-
>> Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
>>> ActiveMQ 6.
>>>
>>> [+1] -  agree
>>> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
>>> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>>>
>>> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>>>
>>> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
>>>
>> --
>> Hiram Chirino
>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>
>
>
>
1234