[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
101 messages Options
123456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

clebertsuconic
+1 on that.. this is my preference.

We didn't name it M1 because I didn't know it was possible within
apache naming conventions.


With our current planning we would release something in 3 months that
would include JDBC support + OSGI and other things.. I don't think we
are years away from completing a full path. we are talking about
months here.


So keep things with M1, M2.. until we are ready for a full replacement
would be a great option

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:

> How is this any different than say  CXF 2.7.x to CXF 3.0.x?     Both versions use the same maven coordinates.    Or Karaf 2.x -> 3.x -> 4.x?
>
> My opinion is that if this is intended to eventually be a “6.0” of ActiveMQ, then lets keep going that direction.  That said, if it’s not ready to be a full replacement, then give it a slightly different naming, like “6.0.0-M1” for milestone 1 or similar.     I guess that would be my preference.   Until we have all the migration issues hammered out and and feature replacements in place,  (and OSGi support)  I’m kind uncomfortable calling it 6.0.   However, a "release milestone” along that path is still a good idea to get people working on it.
>
> Dan
>
>
>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 8:57 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I will continue to look at this as I can find time.
>>
>> One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq- for the
>> prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the
>> followin:
>>
>> * activemq-ra
>> * activemq-web
>>
>> I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with the
>> activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users.  And, I'm especially
>> concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name will be in
>> maven central.
>>
>> Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop
>> maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of
>> confusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693512.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

tabish121@gmail.com
In reply to this post by dkulp
On 03/20/2015 11:17 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> How is this any different than say  CXF 2.7.x to CXF 3.0.x?     Both versions use the same maven coordinates.    Or Karaf 2.x -> 3.x -> 4.x?
+1 was wondering the same thing

> My opinion is that if this is intended to eventually be a “6.0” of ActiveMQ, then lets keep going that direction.  That said, if it’s not ready to be a full replacement, then give it a slightly different naming, like “6.0.0-M1” for milestone 1 or similar.     I guess that would be my preference.   Until we have all the migration issues hammered out and and feature replacements in place,  (and OSGi support)  I’m kind uncomfortable calling it 6.0.   However, a "release milestone” along that path is still a good idea to get people working on it.
>
> Dan
+1 milestone releases would seem to make it clear where it's going

>
>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 8:57 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I will continue to look at this as I can find time.
>>
>> One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq- for the
>> prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the
>> followin:
>>
>> * activemq-ra
>> * activemq-web
>>
>> I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with the
>> activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users.  And, I'm especially
>> concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name will be in
>> maven central.
>>
>> Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop
>> maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of
>> confusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693512.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


--
Tim Bish
Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
[hidden email] | www.redhat.com
skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

dejanb
Even after 6.0 is released (using any of these development paths), 5.x and
6.x will continue to coexists for a long while as many folks wouldn’t want
to move for one reason or another. And that’s normal thing in this kind of
projects. For example take a look at Tomcat, where at this moment you can
download 6.x, 7.x and 8.x (and 9.x is coming), all active. The main thing
to do is to document all this properly, so users can make informed
decisions on what they want/need.

Regards
--
Dejan Bosanac
----------------------
Red Hat, Inc.
[hidden email]
Twitter: @dejanb
Blog: http://sensatic.net
ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 03/20/2015 11:17 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>> How is this any different than say  CXF 2.7.x to CXF 3.0.x?     Both
>> versions use the same maven coordinates.    Or Karaf 2.x -> 3.x -> 4.x?
>>
> +1 was wondering the same thing
>
>  My opinion is that if this is intended to eventually be a “6.0” of
>> ActiveMQ, then lets keep going that direction.  That said, if it’s not
>> ready to be a full replacement, then give it a slightly different naming,
>> like “6.0.0-M1” for milestone 1 or similar.     I guess that would be my
>> preference.   Until we have all the migration issues hammered out and and
>> feature replacements in place,  (and OSGi support)  I’m kind uncomfortable
>> calling it 6.0.   However, a "release milestone” along that path is still a
>> good idea to get people working on it.
>>
>> Dan
>>
> +1 milestone releases would seem to make it clear where it's going
>
>
>>  On Mar 19, 2015, at 8:57 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I will continue to look at this as I can find time.
>>>
>>> One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq- for
>>> the
>>> prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the
>>> followin:
>>>
>>> * activemq-ra
>>> * activemq-web
>>>
>>> I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with the
>>> activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users.  And, I'm
>>> especially
>>> concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name will
>>> be in
>>> maven central.
>>>
>>> Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop
>>> maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of
>>> confusion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>> nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693512.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Tim Bish
> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
> [hidden email] | www.redhat.com
> skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

Weiqi Gao
In that case, is it still very important for ActiveMQ 6.0.0 to have "all
the migration issues hammered out and and feature replacements in place"?

--
Weiqi Gao

On 3/20/2015 10:48 AM, Dejan Bosanac wrote:

> Even after 6.0 is released (using any of these development paths), 5.x and
> 6.x will continue to coexists for a long while as many folks wouldn’t want
> to move for one reason or another. And that’s normal thing in this kind of
> projects. For example take a look at Tomcat, where at this moment you can
> download 6.x, 7.x and 8.x (and 9.x is coming), all active. The main thing
> to do is to document all this properly, so users can make informed
> decisions on what they want/need.
>
> Regards
> --
> Dejan Bosanac
> ----------------------
> Red Hat, Inc.
> [hidden email]
> Twitter: @dejanb
> Blog: http://sensatic.net
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 03/20/2015 11:17 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>
>>> How is this any different than say  CXF 2.7.x to CXF 3.0.x?     Both
>>> versions use the same maven coordinates.    Or Karaf 2.x -> 3.x -> 4.x?
>>>
>> +1 was wondering the same thing
>>
>>   My opinion is that if this is intended to eventually be a “6.0” of
>>> ActiveMQ, then lets keep going that direction.  That said, if it’s not
>>> ready to be a full replacement, then give it a slightly different naming,
>>> like “6.0.0-M1” for milestone 1 or similar.     I guess that would be my
>>> preference.   Until we have all the migration issues hammered out and and
>>> feature replacements in place,  (and OSGi support)  I’m kind uncomfortable
>>> calling it 6.0.   However, a "release milestone” along that path is still a
>>> good idea to get people working on it.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>> +1 milestone releases would seem to make it clear where it's going
>>
>>
>>>   On Mar 19, 2015, at 8:57 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I will continue to look at this as I can find time.
>>>>
>>>> One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq- for
>>>> the
>>>> prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the
>>>> followin:
>>>>
>>>> * activemq-ra
>>>> * activemq-web
>>>>
>>>> I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with the
>>>> activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users.  And, I'm
>>>> especially
>>>> concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name will
>>>> be in
>>>> maven central.
>>>>
>>>> Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop
>>>> maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of
>>>> confusion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>>> nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693512.html
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Tim Bish
>> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
>> [hidden email] | www.redhat.com
>> skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

clebertsuconic
It will all be driven here through the community.

There's a JIRA list https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACTIVEMQ6

This first milestone was is clearing up components, release, and make
it ready to apache.
After we get this first milestone out, I'm hoping to get more people
involved. It's the beauty of open source.


On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Weiqi Gao <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In that case, is it still very important for ActiveMQ 6.0.0 to have "all the
> migration issues hammered out and and feature replacements in place"?
>
> --
> Weiqi Gao
>
> On 3/20/2015 10:48 AM, Dejan Bosanac wrote:
>>
>> Even after 6.0 is released (using any of these development paths), 5.x and
>> 6.x will continue to coexists for a long while as many folks wouldn’t want
>> to move for one reason or another. And that’s normal thing in this kind of
>> projects. For example take a look at Tomcat, where at this moment you can
>> download 6.x, 7.x and 8.x (and 9.x is coming), all active. The main thing
>> to do is to document all this properly, so users can make informed
>> decisions on what they want/need.
>>
>> Regards
>> --
>> Dejan Bosanac
>> ----------------------
>> Red Hat, Inc.
>> [hidden email]
>> Twitter: @dejanb
>> Blog: http://sensatic.net
>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/20/2015 11:17 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>>
>>>> How is this any different than say  CXF 2.7.x to CXF 3.0.x?     Both
>>>> versions use the same maven coordinates.    Or Karaf 2.x -> 3.x -> 4.x?
>>>>
>>> +1 was wondering the same thing
>>>
>>>   My opinion is that if this is intended to eventually be a “6.0” of
>>>>
>>>> ActiveMQ, then lets keep going that direction.  That said, if it’s not
>>>> ready to be a full replacement, then give it a slightly different
>>>> naming,
>>>> like “6.0.0-M1” for milestone 1 or similar.     I guess that would be my
>>>> preference.   Until we have all the migration issues hammered out and
>>>> and
>>>> feature replacements in place,  (and OSGi support)  I’m kind
>>>> uncomfortable
>>>> calling it 6.0.   However, a "release milestone” along that path is
>>>> still a
>>>> good idea to get people working on it.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>> +1 milestone releases would seem to make it clear where it's going
>>>
>>>
>>>>   On Mar 19, 2015, at 8:57 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I will continue to look at this as I can find time.
>>>>>
>>>>> One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq-
>>>>> for
>>>>> the
>>>>> prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the
>>>>> followin:
>>>>>
>>>>> * activemq-ra
>>>>> * activemq-web
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with
>>>>> the
>>>>> activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users.  And, I'm
>>>>> especially
>>>>> concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name will
>>>>> be in
>>>>> maven central.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop
>>>>> maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of
>>>>> confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>>>> nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693512.html
>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tim Bish
>>> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
>>> [hidden email] | www.redhat.com
>>> skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
>>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>>
>



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

artnaseef
In reply to this post by tabish121@gmail.com
One thing I see different here from other project major version bumps - we're still talking a complete rewrite.  With something like Tomcat 7 to Tomcat 8, there's still a reasonable expectation that the knowledge carried from working with Tomcat 7 carries forward to Tomcat 8 (e.g. the artifacts are likely to have the same purposes; config files are likely to carry the same name, etc).  While major versions will break some of that, a good amount usually remains.

For that reason, I'm on the fence about the -M1 idea.  I like the distinguishing name approach.

How about activemq-ng (ng = next-gen)?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

chirino
Tomcat has had complete re-writes.  That's what major ver number
change can mean.

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:30 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:

> One thing I see different here from other project major version bumps - we're
> still talking a complete rewrite.  With something like Tomcat 7 to Tomcat 8,
> there's still a reasonable expectation that the knowledge carried from
> working with Tomcat 7 carries forward to Tomcat 8 (e.g. the artifacts are
> likely to have the same purposes; config files are likely to carry the same
> name, etc).  While major versions will break some of that, a good amount
> usually remains.
>
> For that reason, I'm on the fence about the -M1 idea.  I like the
> distinguishing name approach.
>
> How about activemq-ng (ng = next-gen)?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693549.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



--
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] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

James Carman
I think the point is from the user's perspective it's not a complete
rewrite.  Most things look and smell like good ole Tomcat when you
upgrade.  Sure there are new features sprinkled about, but you don't
have to learn everything anew.


On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Tomcat has had complete re-writes.  That's what major ver number
> change can mean.
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:30 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> One thing I see different here from other project major version bumps - we're
>> still talking a complete rewrite.  With something like Tomcat 7 to Tomcat 8,
>> there's still a reasonable expectation that the knowledge carried from
>> working with Tomcat 7 carries forward to Tomcat 8 (e.g. the artifacts are
>> likely to have the same purposes; config files are likely to carry the same
>> name, etc).  While major versions will break some of that, a good amount
>> usually remains.
>>
>> For that reason, I'm on the fence about the -M1 idea.  I like the
>> distinguishing name approach.
>>
>> How about activemq-ng (ng = next-gen)?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693549.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> --
> 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] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

artnaseef
+1

A complete rewrite means users need to carefully look at what's there and what's not, and those of us building the software need to put in extra effort to even figure that out ourselves.  It also means starting over on learning the software (how to install, configure, deploy, operate, monitor, alert, etc).

A major version bump on projects may involve refactoring and reworking significant parts of the code, and when it does, it's clear to the developers what has been changed and lost from the prior release.  Then it's easy to document.  (Like this: http://tomcat.apache.org/migration-8.html).

If we had a list of all ActiveMQ features, and the state of those features in HornetQ (e.g. implemented, partially implemented, won't implement, etc), that would certainly go a long way to furthering the entire discussion.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

clebertsuconic
I don't think that's an issue. We will provide a clear path for users
from 5 to 6 before we move to final.

We already added OpenWire, Auto-creation of destinations and other
things that would operate similar to 5. and we have more work to do,
which we can get there if we work together.




On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:19 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
> A complete rewrite means users need to carefully look at what's there and
> what's not, and those of us building the software need to put in extra
> effort to even figure that out ourselves.  It also means starting over on
> learning the software (how to install, configure, deploy, operate, monitor,
> alert, etc).
>
> A major version bump on projects may involve refactoring and reworking
> significant parts of the code, and when it does, it's clear to the
> developers what has been changed and lost from the prior release.  Then it's
> easy to document.  (Like this: http://tomcat.apache.org/migration-8.html).
>
> If we had a list of all ActiveMQ features, and the state of those features
> in HornetQ (e.g. implemented, partially implemented, won't implement, etc),
> that would certainly go a long way to furthering the entire discussion.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693553.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@...
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

chirino
In reply to this post by artnaseef
I don't disagree. Create jiras and for those issues in JIRA. We can then
figure out ways to mitigate them to make the transition easier for AMQ 5
users.

On Friday, March 20, 2015, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
> A complete rewrite means users need to carefully look at what's there and
> what's not, and those of us building the software need to put in extra
> effort to even figure that out ourselves.  It also means starting over on
> learning the software (how to install, configure, deploy, operate, monitor,
> alert, etc).
>
> A major version bump on projects may involve refactoring and reworking
> significant parts of the code, and when it does, it's clear to the
> developers what has been changed and lost from the prior release.  Then
> it's
> easy to document.  (Like this: http://tomcat.apache.org/migration-8.html).
>
> If we had a list of all ActiveMQ features, and the state of those features
> in HornetQ (e.g. implemented, partially implemented, won't implement, etc),
> that would certainly go a long way to furthering the entire discussion.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693553.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>


--
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] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

artnaseef
Please help me to understand how this would go.

We would use 6.0.0-M1, 6.0.0-M2, etc until when?  Until we are ready to declare that 6.0.0 is a replacement for 5.x?

After that, then we simply drop the -M# (i.e. release the first 6.0.0)?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

clebertsuconic
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:25 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Please help me to understand how this would go.
>
> We would use 6.0.0-M1, 6.0.0-M2, etc until when?  Until we are ready to
> declare that 6.0.0 is a replacement for 5.x?
>
> After that, then we simply drop the -M# (i.e. release the first 6.0.0)?

Yeah.. That's exactly how I see it.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

andytaylor
In reply to this post by artnaseef
raised a PR to fix your build issue ->
https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/pull/193

On 19/03/15 22:56, artnaseef wrote:

> -1
>
> First off, please start a new thread for the next vote.  This is getting
> confusing.  (That has nothing to do with the -1).
>
> Second, I have to -1 on this vote because of a build failure while trying to
> build the project using the following command which captures the full
> output:
>
>     script BUILD.log mvn clean install
>
> The error indicates the file BUILD.log is missing a license header.
>
> I look forward to the next RC!
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693505.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

Martyn Taylor
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
Apologies for late reply I was on PTO, end of last week.

+1 for 6.0.0-M#

On 20/03/15 20:40, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:25 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Please help me to understand how this would go.
>>
>> We would use 6.0.0-M1, 6.0.0-M2, etc until when?  Until we are ready to
>> declare that 6.0.0 is a replacement for 5.x?
>>
>> After that, then we simply drop the -M# (i.e. release the first 6.0.0)?
> Yeah.. That's exactly how I see it.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

andytaylor
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
So I think the consensus is to go with ActiveMQ 6.0.0-M1 so we will go
ahead and cut a new RC in the next day or so. We will also add some
content the website so users are clear that currently there isn't
feature parity between ActiveMQ 5 and ActiveMQ 6. We will then raise
JIRA to map out a migration path post release.

On 20/03/15 20:40, Clebert Suconic wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:25 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Please help me to understand how this would go.
>>
>> We would use 6.0.0-M1, 6.0.0-M2, etc until when?  Until we are ready to
>> declare that 6.0.0 is a replacement for 5.x?
>>
>> After that, then we simply drop the -M# (i.e. release the first 6.0.0)?
>
> Yeah.. That's exactly how I see it.
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

gtully
+1 to the -M1 naming, I think that captures intent perfectly.

On 23 March 2015 at 10:09, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So I think the consensus is to go with ActiveMQ 6.0.0-M1 so we will go
> ahead and cut a new RC in the next day or so. We will also add some
> content the website so users are clear that currently there isn't
> feature parity between ActiveMQ 5 and ActiveMQ 6. We will then raise
> JIRA to map out a migration path post release.
>
> On 20/03/15 20:40, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:25 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Please help me to understand how this would go.
>>>
>>> We would use 6.0.0-M1, 6.0.0-M2, etc until when?  Until we are ready to
>>> declare that 6.0.0 is a replacement for 5.x?
>>>
>>> After that, then we simply drop the -M# (i.e. release the first 6.0.0)?
>>
>> Yeah.. That's exactly how I see it.
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

artnaseef
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
I see - that makes sense.  It definitely would help to have an enumeration of features and functions and their planned state so we know what the end-goal looks like for reaching the "official" 6.0.0 state.  However, I can see working with the community on a feature-by-feature basis instead, if we can get the community to help us down that path.

Any thoughts on how we engage the community to help draw out the needs from ActiveMQ 5.x that are lacking in ActiveMQ 6.0.0-M#?

Also, how about web pages?  Will there be a clear indication of web pages for the new software so they can easily be distinguished from old pages (thinking about google searches, for example)?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

andytaylor
I already have it on my todo list to come up with a feature matrix (in
fact i have already started) which i will stick on the wiki (or where
ever is appropriate) which will be part of a migration document.
Once i do that I will engage the community on the forums and raise some
Jiras. Any other ideas of how to engage the community are most welcome.

regarding the website, it has the same look and feel as the Apollo site
and will be linked from the main activemq page. regarding google
searches im not sure how this could be best solved, again ideas welcome.

Andy Taylor

On 23/03/15 18:04, artnaseef wrote:

> I see - that makes sense.  It definitely would help to have an enumeration of
> features and functions and their planned state so we know what the end-goal
> looks like for reaching the "official" 6.0.0 state.  However, I can see
> working with the community on a feature-by-feature basis instead, if we can
> get the community to help us down that path.
>
> Any thoughts on how we engage the community to help draw out the needs from
> ActiveMQ 5.x that are lacking in ActiveMQ 6.0.0-M#?
>
> Also, how about web pages?  Will there be a clear indication of web pages
> for the new software so they can easily be distinguished from old pages
> (thinking about google searches, for example)?
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693628.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by gtully
Now here lies the problem.

I agree that it captures the intent well. That also creates an
expectation from the users and sort of a promise from the activemq pmc,
amplified by the vendors' marketing (well, exactly one in this case).
The same promise has been made with apollo.

I am less concerned with the rewrite. To me that is not an issue. If
smaller or larger parts are rewritten but maintain (reasonable) feature
parity, it is an evolution of the same project.

I am however more concerned with the ability of the activemq6
podling/subproject to build a diverse community. So far I don't see
encouraging signs. My fear is that the result will be alienation of the
more diverse activemq 5.x community (still less diverse than it should
be) and turn activemq into a one company show.

So far it looks it looks to me that the perception card was played, with
the choice of name. It *sounds* like activemq6 the evolution of
activemq. How will the current pmc ensure that this is really gonna be
the case? (fwiw, I do get questions about the relationship between amq6
and 5 already, and for the life of me I don't know how to answer).

Choosing a different name, as I think Rob suggested too, would have made
this a moot point.

My $0.02,
Hadrian




On 03/23/2015 10:07 AM, Gary Tully wrote:

> +1 to the -M1 naming, I think that captures intent perfectly.
>
> On 23 March 2015 at 10:09, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> So I think the consensus is to go with ActiveMQ 6.0.0-M1 so we will go
>> ahead and cut a new RC in the next day or so. We will also add some
>> content the website so users are clear that currently there isn't
>> feature parity between ActiveMQ 5 and ActiveMQ 6. We will then raise
>> JIRA to map out a migration path post release.
>>
>> On 20/03/15 20:40, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:25 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Please help me to understand how this would go.
>>>>
>>>> We would use 6.0.0-M1, 6.0.0-M2, etc until when?  Until we are ready to
>>>> declare that 6.0.0 is a replacement for 5.x?
>>>>
>>>> After that, then we simply drop the -M# (i.e. release the first 6.0.0)?
>>>
>>> Yeah.. That's exactly how I see it.
>>>
>>
123456