[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
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Bruce Snyder
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 -- regardless of
the number of votes in each category. '

However, given that there are some binding -1s, I believe it is in
everyone's best interest to stop this vote and prepare a plan to move
forward as a group.

In the interest of moving forward as a group, I have created a page
specifically for the Artemis Roadmap here:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/ActiveMQ+Artemis+Roadmap

I encourage everyone to contribute to this page and discuss it in a
separate discussion thread on the dev@activemq list. I will start a
separate discussion for this topic now.

Bruce

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Shannon <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> @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 changed.
>
> See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > @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 Artemis because there's no adoption, and
> > there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at the
> > website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help at
> > all!!!).
> >
> > If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on the
> > website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before
> > starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into
> > here).
> >
> > Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these agenda
> > items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
> > answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
> > used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view on
> > where we will get.
> >
> >
> > So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis more
> > prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > 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 really hope that is not the direction this is going.
> > >
> > > This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because some
> > folks
> > > are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its
> technical
> > > because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from
> > AMQ5.
> > > I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic - whatever)
> is
> > > being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means
> its
> > > the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the
> old.
> > > Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on numerical
> > > versions for a majority of software and this one in particular - that's
> > > technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is both PR
> > *and*
> > > technical.
> > >
> > > My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis ultimately
> > > becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has
> > reasonable
> > > compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some basic
> > > stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running AMQ5,
> > > which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority of
> > our
> > > community.
> > >
> > > The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very
> > reasonable.
> > > Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line
> so
> > > that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why is that
> > > viewed as so unreasonable?
> > >
> > > I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming
> and
> > > vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an agenda and
> > > there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
> > >
> > > https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w
> > hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
> > >
> > > Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
> > >
> > > https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/
> > artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
> > >
> > > Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a
> numbering
> > > with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear people in
> > the
> > > community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There is no
> > > ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss
> AMQ
> > 7.
> > >
> > > So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do
> with
> > > vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with vendors
> and
> > > this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of the day
> > and
> > > in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with
> this.
> > > But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately
> > clouds
> > > this immensely.
> > >
> > > So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers
> here
> > are
> > > ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are asking a
> > > relative simple request: Can we please increase the community adoption
> > and
> > > get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this
> non-technical
> > > once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis == ActiveMQ
> 6.
> > > IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in HornetQ
> > and
> > > why it was named Artemis to begin with.
> > >
> > > Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon when
> > > bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and eat
> > it
> > > too.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404
> .
> > html
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
>



--
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

jgenender
In reply to this post by Justin Bertram
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 thread as its becoming a bash-fest and flame war.  There is no reason
for that.

I would like to suggest following what Bruce and ultimately Clebert stated.
Lets get Artemis some more prominence on the main AMQ website and start
working on migration paths etc.  The prominence will help with bringing
adoption and the migration will give folks a path to go down.

Lets make this project work in harmony for everyone so we can work towards
consensus for what is AMQ6 and when.



--
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

John D. Ament-2
In reply to this post by Bruce Snyder
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:48 PM Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]> 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 favourable votes than
> unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless of
> the number of votes in each category. '
>
> However, given that there are some binding -1s, I believe it is in
> everyone's best interest to stop this vote and prepare a plan to move
> forward as a group.
>
> In the interest of moving forward as a group, I have created a page
> specifically for the Artemis Roadmap here:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/ActiveMQ+Artemis+Roadmap
>
> I encourage everyone to contribute to this page and discuss it in a
> separate discussion thread on the dev@activemq list. I will start a
> separate discussion for this topic now.
>

Can you please grant committers write access to this page?


>
> Bruce
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > @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 changed.
> >
> > See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > @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 Artemis because there's no adoption, and
> > > there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at the
> > > website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help at
> > > all!!!).
> > >
> > > If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on the
> > > website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before
> > > starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into
> > > here).
> > >
> > > Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these agenda
> > > items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
> > > answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
> > > used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view on
> > > where we will get.
> > >
> > >
> > > So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis more
> > > prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > > 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 really hope that is not the direction this is going.
> > > >
> > > > This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because some
> > > folks
> > > > are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its
> > technical
> > > > because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from
> > > AMQ5.
> > > > I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic -
> whatever)
> > is
> > > > being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means
> > its
> > > > the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the
> > old.
> > > > Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on
> numerical
> > > > versions for a majority of software and this one in particular -
> that's
> > > > technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is both PR
> > > *and*
> > > > technical.
> > > >
> > > > My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis
> ultimately
> > > > becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has
> > > reasonable
> > > > compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some
> basic
> > > > stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running
> AMQ5,
> > > > which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority
> of
> > > our
> > > > community.
> > > >
> > > > The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very
> > > reasonable.
> > > > Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line
> > so
> > > > that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why is
> that
> > > > viewed as so unreasonable?
> > > >
> > > > I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming
> > and
> > > > vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an agenda
> and
> > > > there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
> > > >
> > > > https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w
> > > hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
> > > >
> > > > Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
> > > >
> > > > https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/
> > > artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
> > > >
> > > > Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a
> > numbering
> > > > with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear people
> in
> > > the
> > > > community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There is
> no
> > > > ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss
> > AMQ
> > > 7.
> > > >
> > > > So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do
> > with
> > > > vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with vendors
> > and
> > > > this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of the
> day
> > > and
> > > > in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with
> > this.
> > > > But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately
> > > clouds
> > > > this immensely.
> > > >
> > > > So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers
> > here
> > > are
> > > > ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are
> asking a
> > > > relative simple request: Can we please increase the community
> adoption
> > > and
> > > > get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this
> > non-technical
> > > > once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis ==
> ActiveMQ
> > 6.
> > > > IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in
> HornetQ
> > > and
> > > > why it was named Artemis to begin with.
> > > >
> > > > Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon
> when
> > > > bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and
> eat
> > > it
> > > > too.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sent from:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404
> > .
> > > html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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

Bruce Snyder
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:48 PM Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]>
> 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 favourable votes than
> > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless
> of
> > the number of votes in each category. '
> >
> > However, given that there are some binding -1s, I believe it is in
> > everyone's best interest to stop this vote and prepare a plan to move
> > forward as a group.
> >
> > In the interest of moving forward as a group, I have created a page
> > specifically for the Artemis Roadmap here:
> >
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/
> ActiveMQ+Artemis+Roadmap
> >
> > I encourage everyone to contribute to this page and discuss it in a
> > separate discussion thread on the dev@activemq list. I will start a
> > separate discussion for this topic now.
> >
>
> Can you please grant committers write access to this page?
>
>
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > @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 changed.
> > >
> > > See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > @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 Artemis because there's no adoption, and
> > > > there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at the
> > > > website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help
> at
> > > > all!!!).
> > > >
> > > > If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on the
> > > > website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before
> > > > starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into
> > > > here).
> > > >
> > > > Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these agenda
> > > > items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
> > > > answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
> > > > used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view on
> > > > where we will get.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis more
> > > > prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > > 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 really hope that is not the direction this is going.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because
> some
> > > > folks
> > > > > are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its
> > > technical
> > > > > because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over
> from
> > > > AMQ5.
> > > > > I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic -
> > whatever)
> > > is
> > > > > being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6
> means
> > > its
> > > > > the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the
> > > old.
> > > > > Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on
> > numerical
> > > > > versions for a majority of software and this one in particular -
> > that's
> > > > > technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is both
> PR
> > > > *and*
> > > > > technical.
> > > > >
> > > > > My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis
> > ultimately
> > > > > becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has
> > > > reasonable
> > > > > compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some
> > basic
> > > > > stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running
> > AMQ5,
> > > > > which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority
> > of
> > > > our
> > > > > community.
> > > > >
> > > > > The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very
> > > > reasonable.
> > > > > Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in
> line
> > > so
> > > > > that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why is
> > that
> > > > > viewed as so unreasonable?
> > > > >
> > > > > I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about
> naming
> > > and
> > > > > vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an agenda
> > and
> > > > > there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w
> > > > hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
> > > > >
> > > > > Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/
> > > > artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a
> > > numbering
> > > > > with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear
> people
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There is
> > no
> > > > > ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to
> JBoss
> > > AMQ
> > > > 7.
> > > > >
> > > > > So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to
> do
> > > with
> > > > > vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with
> vendors
> > > and
> > > > > this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of the
> > day
> > > > and
> > > > > in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with
> > > this.
> > > > > But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately
> > > > clouds
> > > > > this immensely.
> > > > >
> > > > > So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers
> > > here
> > > > are
> > > > > ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are
> > asking a
> > > > > relative simple request: Can we please increase the community
> > adoption
> > > > and
> > > > > get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this
> > > non-technical
> > > > > once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis ==
> > ActiveMQ
> > > 6.
> > > > > IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in
> > HornetQ
> > > > and
> > > > > why it was named Artemis to begin with.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon
> > when
> > > > > bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and
> > eat
> > > > it
> > > > > too.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Sent from:
> > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404
> > > .
> > > > html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>



--
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

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by jgenender
> 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, 2 years, 3 years from now... aren't we going to be back to this square?


I just want to know the terms ahead of time.. is this fixable?  I
believe one year from now.. we  will -1s from usually -1s people,  no
matter how complete we are on the Roadmap.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Matt Pavlovich-2
In reply to this post by Bruce Snyder
+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
> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless of
> the number of votes in each category. '
>
> However, given that there are some binding -1s, I believe it is in
> everyone's best interest to stop this vote and prepare a plan to move
> forward as a group.
>
> In the interest of moving forward as a group, I have created a page
> specifically for the Artemis Roadmap here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/ActiveMQ+Artemis+Roadmap
>
> I encourage everyone to contribute to this page and discuss it in a
> separate discussion thread on the dev@activemq list. I will start a
> separate discussion for this topic now.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> @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 changed.
>>
>> See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]
>> wrote:
>>
>>> @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 Artemis because there's no adoption, and
>>> there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at the
>>> website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help at
>>> all!!!).
>>>
>>> If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on the
>>> website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before
>>> starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into
>>> here).
>>>
>>> Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these agenda
>>> items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
>>> answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
>>> used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view on
>>> where we will get.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis more
>>> prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> 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 really hope that is not the direction this is going.
>>>>
>>>> This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because some
>>> folks
>>>> are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its
>> technical
>>>> because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from
>>> AMQ5.
>>>> I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic - whatever)
>> is
>>>> being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means
>> its
>>>> the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the
>> old.
>>>> Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on numerical
>>>> versions for a majority of software and this one in particular - that's
>>>> technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is both PR
>>> *and*
>>>> technical.
>>>>
>>>> My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis ultimately
>>>> becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has
>>> reasonable
>>>> compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some basic
>>>> stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running AMQ5,
>>>> which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority of
>>> our
>>>> community.
>>>>
>>>> The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very
>>> reasonable.
>>>> Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line
>> so
>>>> that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why is that
>>>> viewed as so unreasonable?
>>>>
>>>> I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming
>> and
>>>> vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an agenda and
>>>> there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
>>>>
>>>> https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w
>>> hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
>>>> Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
>>>>
>>>> https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/
>>> artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
>>>> Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a
>> numbering
>>>> with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear people in
>>> the
>>>> community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There is no
>>>> ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss
>> AMQ
>>> 7.
>>>> So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do
>> with
>>>> vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with vendors
>> and
>>>> this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of the day
>>> and
>>>> in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with
>> this.
>>>> But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately
>>> clouds
>>>> this immensely.
>>>>
>>>> So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers
>> here
>>> are
>>>> ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are asking a
>>>> relative simple request: Can we please increase the community adoption
>>> and
>>>> get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this
>> non-technical
>>>> once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis == ActiveMQ
>> 6.
>>>> IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in HornetQ
>>> and
>>>> why it was named Artemis to begin with.
>>>>
>>>> Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon when
>>>> bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and eat
>>> it
>>>> too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404
>> .
>>> html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

jgenender
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
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 hard.  But where I think the elephant is where those votes are aligned.
That should be a much bigger concern.


clebertsuconic wrote

> If you help promote Artemis, work towards the roadmap.. and
> everything.. there's still the question:
>
>
> 1 year, 2 years, 3 years from now... aren't we going to be back to this
> square?
>
>
> I just want to know the terms ahead of time.. is this fixable?  I
> believe one year from now.. we  will -1s from usually -1s people,  no
> matter how complete we are on the Roadmap.

Who can answer that?  I think minimally it needs to be easily migrated.  At
this stage it certainly cannot... at least not from my experience.  We
cannot turn our back on the majority of this community who just so happens
to use ActiveMQ 5.

Its also kind of sad that you have relinquished to thinking -1s are -1s
forever.  I believe I told you point blank I'm all for Artemis being AMQ6...
"When its ready".  What is ready?  It was stated many times in this thread.
I believe the -1s in this thread all said the same thing.  Get more people
using it and have a good compatible migration path so we can be consistent
with all of our major version releases.

Artemis is getting what it wants.  More prominence and support from the AMQ
project and a commitment to migration path.








--
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

clebertsuconic
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 hard.  But where I think the elephant is where those votes are aligned.
> That should be a much bigger concern.
>
>
> clebertsuconic wrote
>> If you help promote Artemis, work towards the roadmap.. and
>> everything.. there's still the question:
>>
>>
>> 1 year, 2 years, 3 years from now... aren't we going to be back to this
>> square?
>>
>>
>> I just want to know the terms ahead of time.. is this fixable?  I
>> believe one year from now.. we  will -1s from usually -1s people,  no
>> matter how complete we are on the Roadmap.
>
> Who can answer that?  I think minimally it needs to be easily migrated.  At
> this stage it certainly cannot... at least not from my experience.  We
> cannot turn our back on the majority of this community who just so happens
> to use ActiveMQ 5.
>
> Its also kind of sad that you have relinquished to thinking -1s are -1s
> forever.  I believe I told you point blank I'm all for Artemis being AMQ6...
> "When its ready".  What is ready?  It was stated many times in this thread.
> I believe the -1s in this thread all said the same thing.  Get more people
> using it and have a good compatible migration path so we can be consistent
> with all of our major version releases.
>
> Artemis is getting what it wants.  More prominence and support from the AMQ
> project and a commitment to migration path.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html



--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

MichaelAndrePearce
In reply to this post by jgenender
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 it’s future in Artemis.







Sent from my iPhone

> On 6 Dec 2017, at 21:34, jgenender <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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 hard.  But where I think the elephant is where those votes are aligned.
> That should be a much bigger concern.
>
>
> clebertsuconic wrote
>> If you help promote Artemis, work towards the roadmap.. and
>> everything.. there's still the question:
>>
>>
>> 1 year, 2 years, 3 years from now... aren't we going to be back to this
>> square?
>>
>>
>> I just want to know the terms ahead of time.. is this fixable?  I
>> believe one year from now.. we  will -1s from usually -1s people,  no
>> matter how complete we are on the Roadmap.
>
> Who can answer that?  I think minimally it needs to be easily migrated.  At
> this stage it certainly cannot... at least not from my experience.  We
> cannot turn our back on the majority of this community who just so happens
> to use ActiveMQ 5.
>
> Its also kind of sad that you have relinquished to thinking -1s are -1s
> forever.  I believe I told you point blank I'm all for Artemis being AMQ6...
> "When its ready".  What is ready?  It was stated many times in this thread.
> I believe the -1s in this thread all said the same thing.  Get more people
> using it and have a good compatible migration path so we can be consistent
> with all of our major version releases.
>
> Artemis is getting what it wants.  More prominence and support from the AMQ
> project and a commitment to migration path.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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

artnaseef
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
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 go quiet.  Months or years pass,
and then we do it again.

Let's change that!  We are all passionate about messaging and there's a ton
of great knowledge here.

I look forward to Bruce working on a roadmap, and providing input on the
same.  Thank you Bruce.  (Please correct me if I read it wrong).




--
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

dkulp
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
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 “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.  Again, get a roadmap in place that documents what needs to be done, get docs and such updated, promote it as an alpha/beta/whatever to get those that are willing to test it to do so, and when it’s ready, we release as 6.0.   (and, IMO, it doesn’t need to be perfect to be 6.0.   We can always spin a 6.0.1 or 6.1 if folks run into issues that haven’t been found)


Dan



> On Dec 4, 2017, at 3:32 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.

--
Daniel Kulp
[hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

jgenender
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.  Again, get a roadmap
> in place that documents what needs to be done, get docs and such updated,
> promote it as an alpha/beta/whatever to get those that are willing to test
> it to do so, and when it’s ready, we release as 6.0.   (and, IMO, it
> doesn’t need to be perfect to be 6.0.   We can always spin a 6.0.1 or 6.1
> if folks run into issues that haven’t been found)

That's apples to oranges and comparing Tomcat to this isn't even in the
realm of reasonable or correct.  This is a different animal all together.

Lets move on at this stage... it looks like we have a direction.



--
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

tabish121@gmail.com
In reply to this post by dkulp
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 between it and AMQ5.
>
> 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.  Again, get a roadmap in place that documents what needs to be done, get docs and such updated, promote it as an alpha/beta/whatever to get those that are willing to test it to do so, and when it’s ready, we release as 6.0.   (and, IMO, it doesn’t need to be perfect to be 6.0.   We can always spin a 6.0.1 or 6.1 if folks run into issues that haven’t been found)
>
>
> Dan
>

+1

Well said Dan.

>
>> On Dec 4, 2017, at 3:32 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.


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

jgenender
In reply to this post by artnaseef
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 discussion (often heated).  Then we go quiet.  Months or years
> pass,
> and then we do it again.
>
> Let's change that!  We are all passionate about messaging and there's a
> ton
> of great knowledge here.
>
> I look forward to Bruce working on a roadmap, and providing input on the
> same.  Thank you Bruce.  (Please correct me if I read it wrong).

+1000!

Well said Art!



--
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

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by jgenender
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 regardless)
   ... any volunteers here?
   ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the confluent wiki.
- Have more discussions on the dev list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Matt Pavlovich-2
In reply to this post by MichaelAndrePearce
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, Michael André Pearce wrote:

> 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 it’s future in Artemis.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 6 Dec 2017, at 21:34, jgenender <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> 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 hard.  But where I think the elephant is where those votes are aligned.
>> That should be a much bigger concern.
>>
>>
>> clebertsuconic wrote
>>> If you help promote Artemis, work towards the roadmap.. and
>>> everything.. there's still the question:
>>>
>>>
>>> 1 year, 2 years, 3 years from now... aren't we going to be back to this
>>> square?
>>>
>>>
>>> I just want to know the terms ahead of time.. is this fixable?  I
>>> believe one year from now.. we  will -1s from usually -1s people,  no
>>> matter how complete we are on the Roadmap.
>> Who can answer that?  I think minimally it needs to be easily migrated.  At
>> this stage it certainly cannot... at least not from my experience.  We
>> cannot turn our back on the majority of this community who just so happens
>> to use ActiveMQ 5.
>>
>> Its also kind of sad that you have relinquished to thinking -1s are -1s
>> forever.  I believe I told you point blank I'm all for Artemis being AMQ6...
>> "When its ready".  What is ready?  It was stated many times in this thread.
>> I believe the -1s in this thread all said the same thing.  Get more people
>> using it and have a good compatible migration path so we can be consistent
>> with all of our major version releases.
>>
>> Artemis is getting what it wants.  More prominence and support from the AMQ
>> project and a commitment to migration path.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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

Bruce Snyder
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
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 good thing.

Bruce

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> 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 regardless)
>    ... any volunteers here?
>    ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the confluent
> wiki.
> - Have more discussions on the dev list
>



--
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

christopher.l.shannon
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 good thing.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > 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 regardless)
> >    ... any volunteers here?
> >    ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the confluent
> > wiki.
> > - Have more discussions on the dev list
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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

jgenender
In reply to this post by Matt Pavlovich-2
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 thing imo.

No... you don't work for Red Hat, but a solid business partner for sure!  No
connections!

https://mediadriver.com/red-hat/

Come on guys.... lets stop the games... time to move on, no?  This is
getting kind of out of hand... don't you agree?







--
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

John D. Ament-2
In reply to this post by Bruce Snyder
Can you check if "johndament" has edit access?

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:07 PM Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]> 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
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:56 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:48 PM Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]>
> > 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 favourable votes
> than
> > > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless
> > of
> > > the number of votes in each category. '
> > >
> > > However, given that there are some binding -1s, I believe it is in
> > > everyone's best interest to stop this vote and prepare a plan to move
> > > forward as a group.
> > >
> > > In the interest of moving forward as a group, I have created a page
> > > specifically for the Artemis Roadmap here:
> > >
> > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/
> > ActiveMQ+Artemis+Roadmap
> > >
> > > I encourage everyone to contribute to this page and discuss it in a
> > > separate discussion thread on the dev@activemq list. I will start a
> > > separate discussion for this topic now.
> > >
> >
> > Can you please grant committers write access to this page?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Bruce
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > @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 changed.
> > > >
> > > > See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > @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 Artemis because there's no adoption,
> and
> > > > > there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at
> the
> > > > > website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help
> > at
> > > > > all!!!).
> > > > >
> > > > > If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on
> the
> > > > > website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before
> > > > > starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into
> > > > > here).
> > > > >
> > > > > Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these
> agenda
> > > > > items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
> > > > > answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
> > > > > used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view
> on
> > > > > where we will get.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis
> more
> > > > > prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > 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 really hope that is not the direction this is going.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because
> > some
> > > > > folks
> > > > > > are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its
> > > > technical
> > > > > > because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over
> > from
> > > > > AMQ5.
> > > > > > I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic -
> > > whatever)
> > > > is
> > > > > > being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6
> > means
> > > > its
> > > > > > the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with
> the
> > > > old.
> > > > > > Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on
> > > numerical
> > > > > > versions for a majority of software and this one in particular -
> > > that's
> > > > > > technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is
> both
> > PR
> > > > > *and*
> > > > > > technical.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis
> > > ultimately
> > > > > > becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has
> > > > > reasonable
> > > > > > compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some
> > > basic
> > > > > > stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running
> > > AMQ5,
> > > > > > which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast
> majority
> > > of
> > > > > our
> > > > > > community.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very
> > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in
> > line
> > > > so
> > > > > > that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why
> is
> > > that
> > > > > > viewed as so unreasonable?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about
> > naming
> > > > and
> > > > > > vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an
> agenda
> > > and
> > > > > > there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w
> > > > > hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/
> > > > > artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a
> > > > numbering
> > > > > > with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear
> > people
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There
> is
> > > no
> > > > > > ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to
> > JBoss
> > > > AMQ
> > > > > 7.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to
> > do
> > > > with
> > > > > > vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with
> > vendors
> > > > and
> > > > > > this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of
> the
> > > day
> > > > > and
> > > > > > in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do
> with
> > > > this.
> > > > > > But the cross pollination of employees and committers
> unfortunately
> > > > > clouds
> > > > > > this immensely.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all
> nay-sayers
> > > > here
> > > > > are
> > > > > > ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are
> > > asking a
> > > > > > relative simple request: Can we please increase the community
> > > adoption
> > > > > and
> > > > > > get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this
> > > > non-technical
> > > > > > once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis ==
> > > ActiveMQ
> > > > 6.
> > > > > > IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in
> > > HornetQ
> > > > > and
> > > > > > why it was named Artemis to begin with.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon
> > > when
> > > > > > bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake
> and
> > > eat
> > > > > it
> > > > > > too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Sent from:
> > > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404
> > > > .
> > > > > html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
1234