[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)

David Jencks
It seems to me that a different name would mean a different project.  IIUC AMQ accepted the code so not having it turn into amq-xxx seems a bit odd to me.

What is stopping all the non-jboss-employees (yes, showing my age here) from enthusiastically digging into the code and adapting from amq 5 or implementing anew all the missing bits?  My limited understanding is that the amq 5 broker sort of reached a dead end and needed a rewrite rather than incremental improvement, first Apollo tried to do it in Scala which not enough people understood, and now there's a new bunch of java code to look at.

It seems to me that one of the roles of the preexisting committers is to help the new ones learn about apache.  What better way than by pitching in and working on the code together?

wishing I had time to actually contribute rather than just argue….
david jencks

On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.
>>>>
>>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

andytaylor
We have already started adapting code from ActiveMQ 5, the
activemq-selector module for instance was taken straight from ActiveMQ 5
and the Openwire protocol is also supported. I for one will be pro
active in building the community and hope that in the future we receive
contributions from many and varied members of the community. Its a shame
your so busy David :).

Andy Taylor

On 24/03/15 02:43, David Jencks wrote:

> It seems to me that a different name would mean a different project.  IIUC AMQ accepted the code so not having it turn into amq-xxx seems a bit odd to me.
>
> What is stopping all the non-jboss-employees (yes, showing my age here) from enthusiastically digging into the code and adapting from amq 5 or implementing anew all the missing bits?  My limited understanding is that the amq 5 broker sort of reached a dead end and needed a rewrite rather than incremental improvement, first Apollo tried to do it in Scala which not enough people understood, and now there's a new bunch of java code to look at.
>
> It seems to me that one of the roles of the preexisting committers is to help the new ones learn about apache.  What better way than by pitching in and working on the code together?
>
> wishing I had time to actually contribute rather than just argue….
> david jencks
>
> On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by David Jencks
Hi David,

I actually fully agree with your statement in principle. Personally, I
would be all for it, we did the same kind of rewrite in Camel when we
moved from 1.x to 2.0, and it was a long and painful process. Speaking
of which there were talks about a Camel 3.0 for at least 3 years that I
am quite skeptical of.

In this case, hornetq is actually a completely different product, voted
into the community by a vendor who has the vast majority of the pmc
votes. Even that would not matter that much if the rest of the community
would buy into the vision of hornetq morphing into the next amq, more or
less a drop in replacement as others stated in the thread.

Your analogy with Apollo is exactly what I mean. As much as I like the
elegance of scala I did not buy into its ability to catalyse a
community. If enough users jump off the activemq 5.x wagon and its
successor doesn't get enough steam, then activemq would reach a "dead end".

I don't know what the future would bring. And honestly, I don't know
what the best choice is. Based on my previous experience, I choose to
err on the conservative side, yet I wish for the best.

The onus is on the new podling to build a community. The fact that it
was adopted by the activemq project doesn't mean that it must use the
same name, it means that the activemq pmc took on the duty of mentoring
the new committers (past example, among others: smx kernel moving to
felix and then going tlp).

Speaking of mentoring, it is not something that can be imposed.
Personally, I have never been asked anything by new committers in the
activemq community. I do however mentor other communities. Tinkerpop is
such an example, and man, it's a joy, the project is growing well and
the technology is awesome. There are other examples where it doesn't
work so well.

Bottom line, activemq6 must build a community. With a different name it
could prove that it's capable of doing it on its own. This way it's
stealing from the activemq5 community. That's fine, but then address its
needs and make the users happy: seamless migration, near drop in
replacement.

Cheers,
Hadrian



On 03/23/2015 10:43 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> It seems to me that a different name would mean a different project.  IIUC AMQ accepted the code so not having it turn into amq-xxx seems a bit odd to me.
>
> What is stopping all the non-jboss-employees (yes, showing my age here) from enthusiastically digging into the code and adapting from amq 5 or implementing anew all the missing bits?  My limited understanding is that the amq 5 broker sort of reached a dead end and needed a rewrite rather than incremental improvement, first Apollo tried to do it in Scala which not enough people understood, and now there's a new bunch of java code to look at.
>
> It seems to me that one of the roles of the preexisting committers is to help the new ones learn about apache.  What better way than by pitching in and working on the code together?
>
> wishing I had time to actually contribute rather than just argue….
> david jencks
>
> On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

Martyn Taylor
I realise there is still some anxiety, but the general consensus seems
to be to move forward with the ActiveMQ 6.0.0.M#. I'd like to continue
moving forward with getting an initial release of the HornetQ code
donation out there for people to use and evaluate. I'll follow up with a
new RC based on 6.0.0.M# versioning.

On 24/03/15 12:07, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> I actually fully agree with your statement in principle. Personally, I
> would be all for it, we did the same kind of rewrite in Camel when we
> moved from 1.x to 2.0, and it was a long and painful process. Speaking
> of which there were talks about a Camel 3.0 for at least 3 years that
> I am quite skeptical of.
>
> In this case, hornetq is actually a completely different product,
> voted into the community by a vendor who has the vast majority of the
> pmc votes. Even that would not matter that much if the rest of the
> community would buy into the vision of hornetq morphing into the next
> amq, more or less a drop in replacement as others stated in the thread.
>
> Your analogy with Apollo is exactly what I mean. As much as I like the
> elegance of scala I did not buy into its ability to catalyse a
> community. If enough users jump off the activemq 5.x wagon and its
> successor doesn't get enough steam, then activemq would reach a "dead
> end".
>
> I don't know what the future would bring. And honestly, I don't know
> what the best choice is. Based on my previous experience, I choose to
> err on the conservative side, yet I wish for the best.
>
> The onus is on the new podling to build a community. The fact that it
> was adopted by the activemq project doesn't mean that it must use the
> same name, it means that the activemq pmc took on the duty of
> mentoring the new committers (past example, among others: smx kernel
> moving to felix and then going tlp).
>
> Speaking of mentoring, it is not something that can be imposed.
> Personally, I have never been asked anything by new committers in the
> activemq community. I do however mentor other communities. Tinkerpop
> is such an example, and man, it's a joy, the project is growing well
> and the technology is awesome. There are other examples where it
> doesn't work so well.
>
> Bottom line, activemq6 must build a community. With a different name
> it could prove that it's capable of doing it on its own. This way it's
> stealing from the activemq5 community. That's fine, but then address
> its needs and make the users happy: seamless migration, near drop in
> replacement.
>
> Cheers,
> Hadrian
>
>
>
> On 03/23/2015 10:43 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>> It seems to me that a different name would mean a different project.  
>> IIUC AMQ accepted the code so not having it turn into amq-xxx seems a
>> bit odd to me.
>>
>> What is stopping all the non-jboss-employees (yes, showing my age
>> here) from enthusiastically digging into the code and adapting from
>> amq 5 or implementing anew all the missing bits? My limited
>> understanding is that the amq 5 broker sort of reached a dead end and
>> needed a rewrite rather than incremental improvement, first Apollo
>> tried to do it in Scala which not enough people understood, and now
>> there's a new bunch of java code to look at.
>>
>> It seems to me that one of the roles of the preexisting committers is
>> to help the new ones learn about apache.  What better way than by
>> pitching in and working on the code together?
>>
>> wishing I had time to actually contribute rather than just argue….
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

Hadrian Zbarcea
That's my point :). How do you define general consensus?

This very much looks like HornetQ taking over ActiveMQ. It very much
looks to me like two different groups doing their own thing
independently on the same mailing list.

More I have to think about it, more uneasy I feel. One would have
expected to see some activemq6/hornetq presence at apachecon for
instance. I don't see any efforts to build a community besides this
'evolution' from activemq5. Are there breakout sessions planned at the
redhat summit? How is the community going to grow?

I am totally confused. You inform us that you will "follow up with a new
RC based on the 6.0.0.M# versioning". Ok, and then what?

Cheers,
Hadrian



On 03/24/2015 08:59 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:

> I realise there is still some anxiety, but the general consensus seems
> to be to move forward with the ActiveMQ 6.0.0.M#. I'd like to continue
> moving forward with getting an initial release of the HornetQ code
> donation out there for people to use and evaluate. I'll follow up with a
> new RC based on 6.0.0.M# versioning.
>
> On 24/03/15 12:07, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> I actually fully agree with your statement in principle. Personally, I
>> would be all for it, we did the same kind of rewrite in Camel when we
>> moved from 1.x to 2.0, and it was a long and painful process. Speaking
>> of which there were talks about a Camel 3.0 for at least 3 years that
>> I am quite skeptical of.
>>
>> In this case, hornetq is actually a completely different product,
>> voted into the community by a vendor who has the vast majority of the
>> pmc votes. Even that would not matter that much if the rest of the
>> community would buy into the vision of hornetq morphing into the next
>> amq, more or less a drop in replacement as others stated in the thread.
>>
>> Your analogy with Apollo is exactly what I mean. As much as I like the
>> elegance of scala I did not buy into its ability to catalyse a
>> community. If enough users jump off the activemq 5.x wagon and its
>> successor doesn't get enough steam, then activemq would reach a "dead
>> end".
>>
>> I don't know what the future would bring. And honestly, I don't know
>> what the best choice is. Based on my previous experience, I choose to
>> err on the conservative side, yet I wish for the best.
>>
>> The onus is on the new podling to build a community. The fact that it
>> was adopted by the activemq project doesn't mean that it must use the
>> same name, it means that the activemq pmc took on the duty of
>> mentoring the new committers (past example, among others: smx kernel
>> moving to felix and then going tlp).
>>
>> Speaking of mentoring, it is not something that can be imposed.
>> Personally, I have never been asked anything by new committers in the
>> activemq community. I do however mentor other communities. Tinkerpop
>> is such an example, and man, it's a joy, the project is growing well
>> and the technology is awesome. There are other examples where it
>> doesn't work so well.
>>
>> Bottom line, activemq6 must build a community. With a different name
>> it could prove that it's capable of doing it on its own. This way it's
>> stealing from the activemq5 community. That's fine, but then address
>> its needs and make the users happy: seamless migration, near drop in
>> replacement.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03/23/2015 10:43 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>> It seems to me that a different name would mean a different project.
>>> IIUC AMQ accepted the code so not having it turn into amq-xxx seems a
>>> bit odd to me.
>>>
>>> What is stopping all the non-jboss-employees (yes, showing my age
>>> here) from enthusiastically digging into the code and adapting from
>>> amq 5 or implementing anew all the missing bits? My limited
>>> understanding is that the amq 5 broker sort of reached a dead end and
>>> needed a rewrite rather than incremental improvement, first Apollo
>>> tried to do it in Scala which not enough people understood, and now
>>> there's a new bunch of java code to look at.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that one of the roles of the preexisting committers is
>>> to help the new ones learn about apache.  What better way than by
>>> pitching in and working on the code together?
>>>
>>> wishing I had time to actually contribute rather than just argue….
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

Martyn Taylor
On 24/03/15 13:26, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
> That's my point :). How do you define general consensus?
By general consensus, I meant that the number of people who replied in
favour of milestone releases is greater than (n / 2).
>
> This very much looks like HornetQ taking over ActiveMQ. It very much
> looks to me like two different groups doing their own thing
> independently on the same mailing list.
I am not sure how you have come to that conclusion.  I am merely
proposing a vote on an RC using the milestone versioning as proposed by
a member of the community.
>
> More I have to think about it, more uneasy I feel. One would have
> expected to see some activemq6/hornetq presence at apachecon for
> instance. I don't see any efforts to build a community besides this
> 'evolution' from activemq5. Are there breakout sessions planned at the
> redhat summit? How is the community going to grow?
How does any open source community grow?  We will promote the project
and invite the existing ActiveMQ community and beyond to try it out, get
involved, raise JIRAs, request features and all the goodness that open
source brings.
>
> I am totally confused. You inform us that you will "follow up with a
> new RC based on the 6.0.0.M# versioning". Ok, and then what?
There is no need for confusion.  Hopefully we will release 6.0.0.M1, and
we will have something concrete to discuss and for the community to try
out. We can incrementally address migration concerns as they arise in
subsequent milestones.

>
> Cheers,
> Hadrian
>
>
>
> On 03/24/2015 08:59 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>> I realise there is still some anxiety, but the general consensus seems
>> to be to move forward with the ActiveMQ 6.0.0.M#. I'd like to continue
>> moving forward with getting an initial release of the HornetQ code
>> donation out there for people to use and evaluate. I'll follow up with a
>> new RC based on 6.0.0.M# versioning.
>>
>> On 24/03/15 12:07, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> I actually fully agree with your statement in principle. Personally, I
>>> would be all for it, we did the same kind of rewrite in Camel when we
>>> moved from 1.x to 2.0, and it was a long and painful process. Speaking
>>> of which there were talks about a Camel 3.0 for at least 3 years that
>>> I am quite skeptical of.
>>>
>>> In this case, hornetq is actually a completely different product,
>>> voted into the community by a vendor who has the vast majority of the
>>> pmc votes. Even that would not matter that much if the rest of the
>>> community would buy into the vision of hornetq morphing into the next
>>> amq, more or less a drop in replacement as others stated in the thread.
>>>
>>> Your analogy with Apollo is exactly what I mean. As much as I like the
>>> elegance of scala I did not buy into its ability to catalyse a
>>> community. If enough users jump off the activemq 5.x wagon and its
>>> successor doesn't get enough steam, then activemq would reach a "dead
>>> end".
>>>
>>> I don't know what the future would bring. And honestly, I don't know
>>> what the best choice is. Based on my previous experience, I choose to
>>> err on the conservative side, yet I wish for the best.
>>>
>>> The onus is on the new podling to build a community. The fact that it
>>> was adopted by the activemq project doesn't mean that it must use the
>>> same name, it means that the activemq pmc took on the duty of
>>> mentoring the new committers (past example, among others: smx kernel
>>> moving to felix and then going tlp).
>>>
>>> Speaking of mentoring, it is not something that can be imposed.
>>> Personally, I have never been asked anything by new committers in the
>>> activemq community. I do however mentor other communities. Tinkerpop
>>> is such an example, and man, it's a joy, the project is growing well
>>> and the technology is awesome. There are other examples where it
>>> doesn't work so well.
>>>
>>> Bottom line, activemq6 must build a community. With a different name
>>> it could prove that it's capable of doing it on its own. This way it's
>>> stealing from the activemq5 community. That's fine, but then address
>>> its needs and make the users happy: seamless migration, near drop in
>>> replacement.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/23/2015 10:43 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>> It seems to me that a different name would mean a different project.
>>>> IIUC AMQ accepted the code so not having it turn into amq-xxx seems a
>>>> bit odd to me.
>>>>
>>>> What is stopping all the non-jboss-employees (yes, showing my age
>>>> here) from enthusiastically digging into the code and adapting from
>>>> amq 5 or implementing anew all the missing bits? My limited
>>>> understanding is that the amq 5 broker sort of reached a dead end and
>>>> needed a rewrite rather than incremental improvement, first Apollo
>>>> tried to do it in Scala which not enough people understood, and now
>>>> there's a new bunch of java code to look at.
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that one of the roles of the preexisting committers is
>>>> to help the new ones learn about apache.  What better way than by
>>>> pitching in and working on the code together?
>>>>
>>>> wishing I had time to actually contribute rather than just argue….
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

Hadrian Zbarcea
Clearly some mentoring is badly needed :(.

Here's my suggestion then, let's see how you like it. Ask the ActiveMQ
pmc to change the name from activemq6 to something else. Prove that you
can build a community around the project independent of the perception
to be an upgrade of activemq.

Then you'll have my full support. WDYT?

Hadrian

On 03/24/2015 10:28 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:

> On 24/03/15 13:26, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>> That's my point :). How do you define general consensus?
> By general consensus, I meant that the number of people who replied in
> favour of milestone releases is greater than (n / 2).
>>
>> This very much looks like HornetQ taking over ActiveMQ. It very much
>> looks to me like two different groups doing their own thing
>> independently on the same mailing list.
> I am not sure how you have come to that conclusion.  I am merely
> proposing a vote on an RC using the milestone versioning as proposed by
> a member of the community.
>>
>> More I have to think about it, more uneasy I feel. One would have
>> expected to see some activemq6/hornetq presence at apachecon for
>> instance. I don't see any efforts to build a community besides this
>> 'evolution' from activemq5. Are there breakout sessions planned at the
>> redhat summit? How is the community going to grow?
> How does any open source community grow?  We will promote the project
> and invite the existing ActiveMQ community and beyond to try it out, get
> involved, raise JIRAs, request features and all the goodness that open
> source brings.
>>
>> I am totally confused. You inform us that you will "follow up with a
>> new RC based on the 6.0.0.M# versioning". Ok, and then what?
> There is no need for confusion.  Hopefully we will release 6.0.0.M1, and
> we will have something concrete to discuss and for the community to try
> out. We can incrementally address migration concerns as they arise in
> subsequent milestones.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03/24/2015 08:59 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>> I realise there is still some anxiety, but the general consensus seems
>>> to be to move forward with the ActiveMQ 6.0.0.M#. I'd like to continue
>>> moving forward with getting an initial release of the HornetQ code
>>> donation out there for people to use and evaluate. I'll follow up with a
>>> new RC based on 6.0.0.M# versioning.
>>>
>>> On 24/03/15 12:07, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>> Hi David,
>>>>
>>>> I actually fully agree with your statement in principle. Personally, I
>>>> would be all for it, we did the same kind of rewrite in Camel when we
>>>> moved from 1.x to 2.0, and it was a long and painful process. Speaking
>>>> of which there were talks about a Camel 3.0 for at least 3 years that
>>>> I am quite skeptical of.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, hornetq is actually a completely different product,
>>>> voted into the community by a vendor who has the vast majority of the
>>>> pmc votes. Even that would not matter that much if the rest of the
>>>> community would buy into the vision of hornetq morphing into the next
>>>> amq, more or less a drop in replacement as others stated in the thread.
>>>>
>>>> Your analogy with Apollo is exactly what I mean. As much as I like the
>>>> elegance of scala I did not buy into its ability to catalyse a
>>>> community. If enough users jump off the activemq 5.x wagon and its
>>>> successor doesn't get enough steam, then activemq would reach a "dead
>>>> end".
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what the future would bring. And honestly, I don't know
>>>> what the best choice is. Based on my previous experience, I choose to
>>>> err on the conservative side, yet I wish for the best.
>>>>
>>>> The onus is on the new podling to build a community. The fact that it
>>>> was adopted by the activemq project doesn't mean that it must use the
>>>> same name, it means that the activemq pmc took on the duty of
>>>> mentoring the new committers (past example, among others: smx kernel
>>>> moving to felix and then going tlp).
>>>>
>>>> Speaking of mentoring, it is not something that can be imposed.
>>>> Personally, I have never been asked anything by new committers in the
>>>> activemq community. I do however mentor other communities. Tinkerpop
>>>> is such an example, and man, it's a joy, the project is growing well
>>>> and the technology is awesome. There are other examples where it
>>>> doesn't work so well.
>>>>
>>>> Bottom line, activemq6 must build a community. With a different name
>>>> it could prove that it's capable of doing it on its own. This way it's
>>>> stealing from the activemq5 community. That's fine, but then address
>>>> its needs and make the users happy: seamless migration, near drop in
>>>> replacement.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Hadrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03/23/2015 10:43 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>> It seems to me that a different name would mean a different project.
>>>>> IIUC AMQ accepted the code so not having it turn into amq-xxx seems a
>>>>> bit odd to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is stopping all the non-jboss-employees (yes, showing my age
>>>>> here) from enthusiastically digging into the code and adapting from
>>>>> amq 5 or implementing anew all the missing bits? My limited
>>>>> understanding is that the amq 5 broker sort of reached a dead end and
>>>>> needed a rewrite rather than incremental improvement, first Apollo
>>>>> tried to do it in Scala which not enough people understood, and now
>>>>> there's a new bunch of java code to look at.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that one of the roles of the preexisting committers is
>>>>> to help the new ones learn about apache.  What better way than by
>>>>> pitching in and working on the code together?
>>>>>
>>>>> wishing I had time to actually contribute rather than just argue….
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

James Carman
In reply to this post by Hadrian Zbarcea
I for one do not agree with this direction the project is taking.
What are the benefits to AMQ as a project?  I have heard some talk of
a "cleaner codebase" or whatever, but that sounds very subjective.
How does switching to HornetQ benefit the users of AMQ?  Will their
migration be a pain?  Is the AMQ codebase that far gone, with nothing
left but to abandon ship and take everything of value over to HornetQ?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for leaner, cleaner, more maintainable
code.  Honestly, I haven't had time to take a look at what's there for
"AMQ6" yet.  It may be the cat's pajamas for all I know.  From the
original [VOTE], it wasn't obvious (at least not to me) that the
direction would be to completely abandon the current AMQ code.  It
would have seemed like we would adapt code from HornetQ (is that last
Q supposed to be capitalized?) into AMQ, not the other way around.
This seems like a classic "bait-and-switch", honestly.


On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:

> That's my point :). How do you define general consensus?
>
> This very much looks like HornetQ taking over ActiveMQ. It very much looks
> to me like two different groups doing their own thing independently on the
> same mailing list.
>
> More I have to think about it, more uneasy I feel. One would have expected
> to see some activemq6/hornetq presence at apachecon for instance. I don't
> see any efforts to build a community besides this 'evolution' from
> activemq5. Are there breakout sessions planned at the redhat summit? How is
> the community going to grow?
>
> I am totally confused. You inform us that you will "follow up with a new RC
> based on the 6.0.0.M# versioning". Ok, and then what?
>
> Cheers,
> Hadrian
>
>
>
>
> On 03/24/2015 08:59 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>
>> I realise there is still some anxiety, but the general consensus seems
>> to be to move forward with the ActiveMQ 6.0.0.M#. I'd like to continue
>> moving forward with getting an initial release of the HornetQ code
>> donation out there for people to use and evaluate. I'll follow up with a
>> new RC based on 6.0.0.M# versioning.
>>
>> On 24/03/15 12:07, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> I actually fully agree with your statement in principle. Personally, I
>>> would be all for it, we did the same kind of rewrite in Camel when we
>>> moved from 1.x to 2.0, and it was a long and painful process. Speaking
>>> of which there were talks about a Camel 3.0 for at least 3 years that
>>> I am quite skeptical of.
>>>
>>> In this case, hornetq is actually a completely different product,
>>> voted into the community by a vendor who has the vast majority of the
>>> pmc votes. Even that would not matter that much if the rest of the
>>> community would buy into the vision of hornetq morphing into the next
>>> amq, more or less a drop in replacement as others stated in the thread.
>>>
>>> Your analogy with Apollo is exactly what I mean. As much as I like the
>>> elegance of scala I did not buy into its ability to catalyse a
>>> community. If enough users jump off the activemq 5.x wagon and its
>>> successor doesn't get enough steam, then activemq would reach a "dead
>>> end".
>>>
>>> I don't know what the future would bring. And honestly, I don't know
>>> what the best choice is. Based on my previous experience, I choose to
>>> err on the conservative side, yet I wish for the best.
>>>
>>> The onus is on the new podling to build a community. The fact that it
>>> was adopted by the activemq project doesn't mean that it must use the
>>> same name, it means that the activemq pmc took on the duty of
>>> mentoring the new committers (past example, among others: smx kernel
>>> moving to felix and then going tlp).
>>>
>>> Speaking of mentoring, it is not something that can be imposed.
>>> Personally, I have never been asked anything by new committers in the
>>> activemq community. I do however mentor other communities. Tinkerpop
>>> is such an example, and man, it's a joy, the project is growing well
>>> and the technology is awesome. There are other examples where it
>>> doesn't work so well.
>>>
>>> Bottom line, activemq6 must build a community. With a different name
>>> it could prove that it's capable of doing it on its own. This way it's
>>> stealing from the activemq5 community. That's fine, but then address
>>> its needs and make the users happy: seamless migration, near drop in
>>> replacement.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/23/2015 10:43 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that a different name would mean a different project.
>>>> IIUC AMQ accepted the code so not having it turn into amq-xxx seems a
>>>> bit odd to me.
>>>>
>>>> What is stopping all the non-jboss-employees (yes, showing my age
>>>> here) from enthusiastically digging into the code and adapting from
>>>> amq 5 or implementing anew all the missing bits? My limited
>>>> understanding is that the amq 5 broker sort of reached a dead end and
>>>> needed a rewrite rather than incremental improvement, first Apollo
>>>> tried to do it in Scala which not enough people understood, and now
>>>> there's a new bunch of java code to look at.
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that one of the roles of the preexisting committers is
>>>> to help the new ones learn about apache.  What better way than by
>>>> pitching in and working on the code together?
>>>>
>>>> wishing I had time to actually contribute rather than just argue….
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

Martyn Taylor
In reply to this post by Hadrian Zbarcea
Surely that is exactly where we have come from with HornetQ?

On 24/03/15 14:59, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:

> Clearly some mentoring is badly needed :(.
>
> Here's my suggestion then, let's see how you like it. Ask the ActiveMQ
> pmc to change the name from activemq6 to something else. Prove that
> you can build a community around the project independent of the
> perception to be an upgrade of activemq.
>
> Then you'll have my full support. WDYT?
>
> Hadrian
>
> On 03/24/2015 10:28 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>> On 24/03/15 13:26, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>> That's my point :). How do you define general consensus?
>> By general consensus, I meant that the number of people who replied in
>> favour of milestone releases is greater than (n / 2).
>>>
>>> This very much looks like HornetQ taking over ActiveMQ. It very much
>>> looks to me like two different groups doing their own thing
>>> independently on the same mailing list.
>> I am not sure how you have come to that conclusion.  I am merely
>> proposing a vote on an RC using the milestone versioning as proposed by
>> a member of the community.
>>>
>>> More I have to think about it, more uneasy I feel. One would have
>>> expected to see some activemq6/hornetq presence at apachecon for
>>> instance. I don't see any efforts to build a community besides this
>>> 'evolution' from activemq5. Are there breakout sessions planned at the
>>> redhat summit? How is the community going to grow?
>> How does any open source community grow?  We will promote the project
>> and invite the existing ActiveMQ community and beyond to try it out, get
>> involved, raise JIRAs, request features and all the goodness that open
>> source brings.
>>>
>>> I am totally confused. You inform us that you will "follow up with a
>>> new RC based on the 6.0.0.M# versioning". Ok, and then what?
>> There is no need for confusion.  Hopefully we will release 6.0.0.M1, and
>> we will have something concrete to discuss and for the community to try
>> out. We can incrementally address migration concerns as they arise in
>> subsequent milestones.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/24/2015 08:59 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>>> I realise there is still some anxiety, but the general consensus seems
>>>> to be to move forward with the ActiveMQ 6.0.0.M#. I'd like to continue
>>>> moving forward with getting an initial release of the HornetQ code
>>>> donation out there for people to use and evaluate. I'll follow up
>>>> with a
>>>> new RC based on 6.0.0.M# versioning.
>>>>
>>>> On 24/03/15 12:07, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>
>>>>> I actually fully agree with your statement in principle.
>>>>> Personally, I
>>>>> would be all for it, we did the same kind of rewrite in Camel when we
>>>>> moved from 1.x to 2.0, and it was a long and painful process.
>>>>> Speaking
>>>>> of which there were talks about a Camel 3.0 for at least 3 years that
>>>>> I am quite skeptical of.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case, hornetq is actually a completely different product,
>>>>> voted into the community by a vendor who has the vast majority of the
>>>>> pmc votes. Even that would not matter that much if the rest of the
>>>>> community would buy into the vision of hornetq morphing into the next
>>>>> amq, more or less a drop in replacement as others stated in the
>>>>> thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your analogy with Apollo is exactly what I mean. As much as I like
>>>>> the
>>>>> elegance of scala I did not buy into its ability to catalyse a
>>>>> community. If enough users jump off the activemq 5.x wagon and its
>>>>> successor doesn't get enough steam, then activemq would reach a "dead
>>>>> end".
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know what the future would bring. And honestly, I don't know
>>>>> what the best choice is. Based on my previous experience, I choose to
>>>>> err on the conservative side, yet I wish for the best.
>>>>>
>>>>> The onus is on the new podling to build a community. The fact that it
>>>>> was adopted by the activemq project doesn't mean that it must use the
>>>>> same name, it means that the activemq pmc took on the duty of
>>>>> mentoring the new committers (past example, among others: smx kernel
>>>>> moving to felix and then going tlp).
>>>>>
>>>>> Speaking of mentoring, it is not something that can be imposed.
>>>>> Personally, I have never been asked anything by new committers in the
>>>>> activemq community. I do however mentor other communities. Tinkerpop
>>>>> is such an example, and man, it's a joy, the project is growing well
>>>>> and the technology is awesome. There are other examples where it
>>>>> doesn't work so well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bottom line, activemq6 must build a community. With a different name
>>>>> it could prove that it's capable of doing it on its own. This way
>>>>> it's
>>>>> stealing from the activemq5 community. That's fine, but then address
>>>>> its needs and make the users happy: seamless migration, near drop in
>>>>> replacement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/23/2015 10:43 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>> It seems to me that a different name would mean a different project.
>>>>>> IIUC AMQ accepted the code so not having it turn into amq-xxx
>>>>>> seems a
>>>>>> bit odd to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is stopping all the non-jboss-employees (yes, showing my age
>>>>>> here) from enthusiastically digging into the code and adapting from
>>>>>> amq 5 or implementing anew all the missing bits? My limited
>>>>>> understanding is that the amq 5 broker sort of reached a dead end
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> needed a rewrite rather than incremental improvement, first Apollo
>>>>>> tried to do it in Scala which not enough people understood, and now
>>>>>> there's a new bunch of java code to look at.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to me that one of the roles of the preexisting
>>>>>> committers is
>>>>>> to help the new ones learn about apache.  What better way than by
>>>>>> pitching in and working on the code together?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wishing I had time to actually contribute rather than just argue….
>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

jgoodyear
Then it sounds like calling it org.apache.activemq.hornetq would have
made the most sense here.

Easy, straightforward naming. No one gets confused.

When Servicemix Kernel went to Apache Felix we rebranded as Apache
Felix Karaf. The transition seemed to make sense to all users. We kept
the name when the project went top level. If the virgo project was to
be donated to Karaf, I'd suspect we'd call it org.apache.karaf.virgo
instead of Karaf 5.0.

My 2 cents CAD,
Jamie

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Martyn Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Surely that is exactly where we have come from with HornetQ?
>
>
> On 24/03/15 14:59, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>
>> Clearly some mentoring is badly needed :(.
>>
>> Here's my suggestion then, let's see how you like it. Ask the ActiveMQ pmc
>> to change the name from activemq6 to something else. Prove that you can
>> build a community around the project independent of the perception to be an
>> upgrade of activemq.
>>
>> Then you'll have my full support. WDYT?
>>
>> Hadrian
>>
>> On 03/24/2015 10:28 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24/03/15 13:26, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's my point :). How do you define general consensus?
>>>
>>> By general consensus, I meant that the number of people who replied in
>>> favour of milestone releases is greater than (n / 2).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This very much looks like HornetQ taking over ActiveMQ. It very much
>>>> looks to me like two different groups doing their own thing
>>>> independently on the same mailing list.
>>>
>>> I am not sure how you have come to that conclusion.  I am merely
>>> proposing a vote on an RC using the milestone versioning as proposed by
>>> a member of the community.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> More I have to think about it, more uneasy I feel. One would have
>>>> expected to see some activemq6/hornetq presence at apachecon for
>>>> instance. I don't see any efforts to build a community besides this
>>>> 'evolution' from activemq5. Are there breakout sessions planned at the
>>>> redhat summit? How is the community going to grow?
>>>
>>> How does any open source community grow?  We will promote the project
>>> and invite the existing ActiveMQ community and beyond to try it out, get
>>> involved, raise JIRAs, request features and all the goodness that open
>>> source brings.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am totally confused. You inform us that you will "follow up with a
>>>> new RC based on the 6.0.0.M# versioning". Ok, and then what?
>>>
>>> There is no need for confusion.  Hopefully we will release 6.0.0.M1, and
>>> we will have something concrete to discuss and for the community to try
>>> out. We can incrementally address migration concerns as they arise in
>>> subsequent milestones.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Hadrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03/24/2015 08:59 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I realise there is still some anxiety, but the general consensus seems
>>>>> to be to move forward with the ActiveMQ 6.0.0.M#. I'd like to continue
>>>>> moving forward with getting an initial release of the HornetQ code
>>>>> donation out there for people to use and evaluate. I'll follow up with
>>>>> a
>>>>> new RC based on 6.0.0.M# versioning.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 24/03/15 12:07, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I actually fully agree with your statement in principle. Personally, I
>>>>>> would be all for it, we did the same kind of rewrite in Camel when we
>>>>>> moved from 1.x to 2.0, and it was a long and painful process. Speaking
>>>>>> of which there were talks about a Camel 3.0 for at least 3 years that
>>>>>> I am quite skeptical of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this case, hornetq is actually a completely different product,
>>>>>> voted into the community by a vendor who has the vast majority of the
>>>>>> pmc votes. Even that would not matter that much if the rest of the
>>>>>> community would buy into the vision of hornetq morphing into the next
>>>>>> amq, more or less a drop in replacement as others stated in the
>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your analogy with Apollo is exactly what I mean. As much as I like the
>>>>>> elegance of scala I did not buy into its ability to catalyse a
>>>>>> community. If enough users jump off the activemq 5.x wagon and its
>>>>>> successor doesn't get enough steam, then activemq would reach a "dead
>>>>>> end".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know what the future would bring. And honestly, I don't know
>>>>>> what the best choice is. Based on my previous experience, I choose to
>>>>>> err on the conservative side, yet I wish for the best.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The onus is on the new podling to build a community. The fact that it
>>>>>> was adopted by the activemq project doesn't mean that it must use the
>>>>>> same name, it means that the activemq pmc took on the duty of
>>>>>> mentoring the new committers (past example, among others: smx kernel
>>>>>> moving to felix and then going tlp).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Speaking of mentoring, it is not something that can be imposed.
>>>>>> Personally, I have never been asked anything by new committers in the
>>>>>> activemq community. I do however mentor other communities. Tinkerpop
>>>>>> is such an example, and man, it's a joy, the project is growing well
>>>>>> and the technology is awesome. There are other examples where it
>>>>>> doesn't work so well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bottom line, activemq6 must build a community. With a different name
>>>>>> it could prove that it's capable of doing it on its own. This way it's
>>>>>> stealing from the activemq5 community. That's fine, but then address
>>>>>> its needs and make the users happy: seamless migration, near drop in
>>>>>> replacement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/23/2015 10:43 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems to me that a different name would mean a different project.
>>>>>>> IIUC AMQ accepted the code so not having it turn into amq-xxx seems a
>>>>>>> bit odd to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is stopping all the non-jboss-employees (yes, showing my age
>>>>>>> here) from enthusiastically digging into the code and adapting from
>>>>>>> amq 5 or implementing anew all the missing bits? My limited
>>>>>>> understanding is that the amq 5 broker sort of reached a dead end and
>>>>>>> needed a rewrite rather than incremental improvement, first Apollo
>>>>>>> tried to do it in Scala which not enough people understood, and now
>>>>>>> there's a new bunch of java code to look at.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems to me that one of the roles of the preexisting committers is
>>>>>>> to help the new ones learn about apache.  What better way than by
>>>>>>> pitching in and working on the code together?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wishing I had time to actually contribute rather than just argue….
>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

Hadrian Zbarcea
Precisely. That's what I was trying to say.
So, it sounds to me that others too share my concerns and, RH excepted,
the consensus is actually more on the opposite side, hornetq should use
a different name (activemq-hornet or something).

True?
Hadrian


On 03/24/2015 12:02 PM, Jamie G. wrote:

> Then it sounds like calling it org.apache.activemq.hornetq would have
> made the most sense here.
>
> Easy, straightforward naming. No one gets confused.
>
> When Servicemix Kernel went to Apache Felix we rebranded as Apache
> Felix Karaf. The transition seemed to make sense to all users. We kept
> the name when the project went top level. If the virgo project was to
> be donated to Karaf, I'd suspect we'd call it org.apache.karaf.virgo
> instead of Karaf 5.0.
>
> My 2 cents CAD,
> Jamie
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Martyn Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Surely that is exactly where we have come from with HornetQ?
>>
>>
>> On 24/03/15 14:59, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>
>>> Clearly some mentoring is badly needed :(.
>>>
>>> Here's my suggestion then, let's see how you like it. Ask the ActiveMQ pmc
>>> to change the name from activemq6 to something else. Prove that you can
>>> build a community around the project independent of the perception to be an
>>> upgrade of activemq.
>>>
>>> Then you'll have my full support. WDYT?
>>>
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>> On 03/24/2015 10:28 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 24/03/15 13:26, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That's my point :). How do you define general consensus?
>>>>
>>>> By general consensus, I meant that the number of people who replied in
>>>> favour of milestone releases is greater than (n / 2).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This very much looks like HornetQ taking over ActiveMQ. It very much
>>>>> looks to me like two different groups doing their own thing
>>>>> independently on the same mailing list.
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure how you have come to that conclusion.  I am merely
>>>> proposing a vote on an RC using the milestone versioning as proposed by
>>>> a member of the community.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> More I have to think about it, more uneasy I feel. One would have
>>>>> expected to see some activemq6/hornetq presence at apachecon for
>>>>> instance. I don't see any efforts to build a community besides this
>>>>> 'evolution' from activemq5. Are there breakout sessions planned at the
>>>>> redhat summit? How is the community going to grow?
>>>>
>>>> How does any open source community grow?  We will promote the project
>>>> and invite the existing ActiveMQ community and beyond to try it out, get
>>>> involved, raise JIRAs, request features and all the goodness that open
>>>> source brings.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am totally confused. You inform us that you will "follow up with a
>>>>> new RC based on the 6.0.0.M# versioning". Ok, and then what?
>>>>
>>>> There is no need for confusion.  Hopefully we will release 6.0.0.M1, and
>>>> we will have something concrete to discuss and for the community to try
>>>> out. We can incrementally address migration concerns as they arise in
>>>> subsequent milestones.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/24/2015 08:59 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I realise there is still some anxiety, but the general consensus seems
>>>>>> to be to move forward with the ActiveMQ 6.0.0.M#. I'd like to continue
>>>>>> moving forward with getting an initial release of the HornetQ code
>>>>>> donation out there for people to use and evaluate. I'll follow up with
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> new RC based on 6.0.0.M# versioning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24/03/15 12:07, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I actually fully agree with your statement in principle. Personally, I
>>>>>>> would be all for it, we did the same kind of rewrite in Camel when we
>>>>>>> moved from 1.x to 2.0, and it was a long and painful process. Speaking
>>>>>>> of which there were talks about a Camel 3.0 for at least 3 years that
>>>>>>> I am quite skeptical of.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In this case, hornetq is actually a completely different product,
>>>>>>> voted into the community by a vendor who has the vast majority of the
>>>>>>> pmc votes. Even that would not matter that much if the rest of the
>>>>>>> community would buy into the vision of hornetq morphing into the next
>>>>>>> amq, more or less a drop in replacement as others stated in the
>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your analogy with Apollo is exactly what I mean. As much as I like the
>>>>>>> elegance of scala I did not buy into its ability to catalyse a
>>>>>>> community. If enough users jump off the activemq 5.x wagon and its
>>>>>>> successor doesn't get enough steam, then activemq would reach a "dead
>>>>>>> end".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know what the future would bring. And honestly, I don't know
>>>>>>> what the best choice is. Based on my previous experience, I choose to
>>>>>>> err on the conservative side, yet I wish for the best.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The onus is on the new podling to build a community. The fact that it
>>>>>>> was adopted by the activemq project doesn't mean that it must use the
>>>>>>> same name, it means that the activemq pmc took on the duty of
>>>>>>> mentoring the new committers (past example, among others: smx kernel
>>>>>>> moving to felix and then going tlp).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Speaking of mentoring, it is not something that can be imposed.
>>>>>>> Personally, I have never been asked anything by new committers in the
>>>>>>> activemq community. I do however mentor other communities. Tinkerpop
>>>>>>> is such an example, and man, it's a joy, the project is growing well
>>>>>>> and the technology is awesome. There are other examples where it
>>>>>>> doesn't work so well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bottom line, activemq6 must build a community. With a different name
>>>>>>> it could prove that it's capable of doing it on its own. This way it's
>>>>>>> stealing from the activemq5 community. That's fine, but then address
>>>>>>> its needs and make the users happy: seamless migration, near drop in
>>>>>>> replacement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 03/23/2015 10:43 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems to me that a different name would mean a different project.
>>>>>>>> IIUC AMQ accepted the code so not having it turn into amq-xxx seems a
>>>>>>>> bit odd to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is stopping all the non-jboss-employees (yes, showing my age
>>>>>>>> here) from enthusiastically digging into the code and adapting from
>>>>>>>> amq 5 or implementing anew all the missing bits? My limited
>>>>>>>> understanding is that the amq 5 broker sort of reached a dead end and
>>>>>>>> needed a rewrite rather than incremental improvement, first Apollo
>>>>>>>> tried to do it in Scala which not enough people understood, and now
>>>>>>>> there's a new bunch of java code to look at.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems to me that one of the roles of the preexisting committers is
>>>>>>>> to help the new ones learn about apache.  What better way than by
>>>>>>>> pitching in and working on the code together?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wishing I had time to actually contribute rather than just argue….
>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

dkulp

> On Mar 24, 2015, at 12:12 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Precisely. That's what I was trying to say.
> So, it sounds to me that others too share my concerns and, RH excepted, the consensus is actually more on the opposite side, hornetq should use a different name (activemq-hornet or something).


Well, no.   I’m not RH but I feel that the 6.0.0-M# number and sticking with ActiveMQ naming is fine.  :-)

Dan



>
> True?
> Hadrian
>
>
> On 03/24/2015 12:02 PM, Jamie G. wrote:
>> Then it sounds like calling it org.apache.activemq.hornetq would have
>> made the most sense here.
>>
>> Easy, straightforward naming. No one gets confused.
>>
>> When Servicemix Kernel went to Apache Felix we rebranded as Apache
>> Felix Karaf. The transition seemed to make sense to all users. We kept
>> the name when the project went top level. If the virgo project was to
>> be donated to Karaf, I'd suspect we'd call it org.apache.karaf.virgo
>> instead of Karaf 5.0.
>>
>> My 2 cents CAD,
>> Jamie
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Martyn Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Surely that is exactly where we have come from with HornetQ?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24/03/15 14:59, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Clearly some mentoring is badly needed :(.
>>>>
>>>> Here's my suggestion then, let's see how you like it. Ask the ActiveMQ pmc
>>>> to change the name from activemq6 to something else. Prove that you can
>>>> build a community around the project independent of the perception to be an
>>>> upgrade of activemq.
>>>>
>>>> Then you'll have my full support. WDYT?
>>>>
>>>> Hadrian
>>>>
>>>> On 03/24/2015 10:28 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 24/03/15 13:26, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's my point :). How do you define general consensus?
>>>>>
>>>>> By general consensus, I meant that the number of people who replied in
>>>>> favour of milestone releases is greater than (n / 2).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This very much looks like HornetQ taking over ActiveMQ. It very much
>>>>>> looks to me like two different groups doing their own thing
>>>>>> independently on the same mailing list.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure how you have come to that conclusion.  I am merely
>>>>> proposing a vote on an RC using the milestone versioning as proposed by
>>>>> a member of the community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More I have to think about it, more uneasy I feel. One would have
>>>>>> expected to see some activemq6/hornetq presence at apachecon for
>>>>>> instance. I don't see any efforts to build a community besides this
>>>>>> 'evolution' from activemq5. Are there breakout sessions planned at the
>>>>>> redhat summit? How is the community going to grow?
>>>>>
>>>>> How does any open source community grow?  We will promote the project
>>>>> and invite the existing ActiveMQ community and beyond to try it out, get
>>>>> involved, raise JIRAs, request features and all the goodness that open
>>>>> source brings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am totally confused. You inform us that you will "follow up with a
>>>>>> new RC based on the 6.0.0.M# versioning". Ok, and then what?
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no need for confusion.  Hopefully we will release 6.0.0.M1, and
>>>>> we will have something concrete to discuss and for the community to try
>>>>> out. We can incrementally address migration concerns as they arise in
>>>>> subsequent milestones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/24/2015 08:59 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I realise there is still some anxiety, but the general consensus seems
>>>>>>> to be to move forward with the ActiveMQ 6.0.0.M#. I'd like to continue
>>>>>>> moving forward with getting an initial release of the HornetQ code
>>>>>>> donation out there for people to use and evaluate. I'll follow up with
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> new RC based on 6.0.0.M# versioning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24/03/15 12:07, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I actually fully agree with your statement in principle. Personally, I
>>>>>>>> would be all for it, we did the same kind of rewrite in Camel when we
>>>>>>>> moved from 1.x to 2.0, and it was a long and painful process. Speaking
>>>>>>>> of which there were talks about a Camel 3.0 for at least 3 years that
>>>>>>>> I am quite skeptical of.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In this case, hornetq is actually a completely different product,
>>>>>>>> voted into the community by a vendor who has the vast majority of the
>>>>>>>> pmc votes. Even that would not matter that much if the rest of the
>>>>>>>> community would buy into the vision of hornetq morphing into the next
>>>>>>>> amq, more or less a drop in replacement as others stated in the
>>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your analogy with Apollo is exactly what I mean. As much as I like the
>>>>>>>> elegance of scala I did not buy into its ability to catalyse a
>>>>>>>> community. If enough users jump off the activemq 5.x wagon and its
>>>>>>>> successor doesn't get enough steam, then activemq would reach a "dead
>>>>>>>> end".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't know what the future would bring. And honestly, I don't know
>>>>>>>> what the best choice is. Based on my previous experience, I choose to
>>>>>>>> err on the conservative side, yet I wish for the best.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The onus is on the new podling to build a community. The fact that it
>>>>>>>> was adopted by the activemq project doesn't mean that it must use the
>>>>>>>> same name, it means that the activemq pmc took on the duty of
>>>>>>>> mentoring the new committers (past example, among others: smx kernel
>>>>>>>> moving to felix and then going tlp).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Speaking of mentoring, it is not something that can be imposed.
>>>>>>>> Personally, I have never been asked anything by new committers in the
>>>>>>>> activemq community. I do however mentor other communities. Tinkerpop
>>>>>>>> is such an example, and man, it's a joy, the project is growing well
>>>>>>>> and the technology is awesome. There are other examples where it
>>>>>>>> doesn't work so well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bottom line, activemq6 must build a community. With a different name
>>>>>>>> it could prove that it's capable of doing it on its own. This way it's
>>>>>>>> stealing from the activemq5 community. That's fine, but then address
>>>>>>>> its needs and make the users happy: seamless migration, near drop in
>>>>>>>> replacement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 03/23/2015 10:43 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that a different name would mean a different project.
>>>>>>>>> IIUC AMQ accepted the code so not having it turn into amq-xxx seems a
>>>>>>>>> bit odd to me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is stopping all the non-jboss-employees (yes, showing my age
>>>>>>>>> here) from enthusiastically digging into the code and adapting from
>>>>>>>>> amq 5 or implementing anew all the missing bits? My limited
>>>>>>>>> understanding is that the amq 5 broker sort of reached a dead end and
>>>>>>>>> needed a rewrite rather than incremental improvement, first Apollo
>>>>>>>>> tried to do it in Scala which not enough people understood, and now
>>>>>>>>> there's a new bunch of java code to look at.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that one of the roles of the preexisting committers is
>>>>>>>>> to help the new ones learn about apache.  What better way than by
>>>>>>>>> pitching in and working on the code together?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wishing I had time to actually contribute rather than just argue….
>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>

--
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] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

artnaseef
In reply to this post by Hadrian Zbarcea
Thinking about the issue of community and community-building, I agree with Hadrian here.

HornetQ could have been its own project, built-up its own community (including winning over members from the AMQ community who are behind it) and started on its own footing.  There's nothing that would have prevented it from following the same technical path outside of the ActiveMQ brand, even getting to a place where it could replace ActiveMQ.

As an example of the importance of community to this process -- the plan to use the -M# naming requires community involvement to be a success.  Yet, so far, I haven't seen much community involvement in HornetQ and the effort.

And to Jamie Goodyear's point, what are the benefits to the ActiveMQ community?

When I saw the call to accept the donation of HornetQ into ActiveMQ, I thought it mean pulling parts of the HornetQ code base into the existing ActiveMQ code base.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

Weiqi Gao
In reply to this post by dkulp
I agree with Daniel, and think the ActiveMQ naming is fine.  I would
advocate that the ActiveMQ team do a more aggressive jobs of getting the
word out about the situation, so that both the current users of ActiveMQ
5 and HornetQ (under JBoss/WildFly) are not caught off guard when the
switch-over occurs.

--
Weiqi Gao

On 3/24/2015 11:18 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:

>
>> On Mar 24, 2015, at 12:12 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Precisely. That's what I was trying to say.
>> So, it sounds to me that others too share my concerns and, RH excepted, the consensus is actually more on the opposite side, hornetq should use a different name (activemq-hornet or something).
>
>
> Well, no.   I’m not RH but I feel that the 6.0.0-M# number and sticking with ActiveMQ naming is fine.  :-)
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>>
>> True?
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>> On 03/24/2015 12:02 PM, Jamie G. wrote:
>>> Then it sounds like calling it org.apache.activemq.hornetq would have
>>> made the most sense here.
>>>
>>> Easy, straightforward naming. No one gets confused.
>>>
>>> When Servicemix Kernel went to Apache Felix we rebranded as Apache
>>> Felix Karaf. The transition seemed to make sense to all users. We kept
>>> the name when the project went top level. If the virgo project was to
>>> be donated to Karaf, I'd suspect we'd call it org.apache.karaf.virgo
>>> instead of Karaf 5.0.
>>>
>>> My 2 cents CAD,
>>> Jamie
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Martyn Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Surely that is exactly where we have come from with HornetQ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 24/03/15 14:59, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly some mentoring is badly needed :(.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's my suggestion then, let's see how you like it. Ask the ActiveMQ pmc
>>>>> to change the name from activemq6 to something else. Prove that you can
>>>>> build a community around the project independent of the perception to be an
>>>>> upgrade of activemq.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you'll have my full support. WDYT?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/24/2015 10:28 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24/03/15 13:26, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's my point :). How do you define general consensus?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By general consensus, I meant that the number of people who replied in
>>>>>> favour of milestone releases is greater than (n / 2).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This very much looks like HornetQ taking over ActiveMQ. It very much
>>>>>>> looks to me like two different groups doing their own thing
>>>>>>> independently on the same mailing list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not sure how you have come to that conclusion.  I am merely
>>>>>> proposing a vote on an RC using the milestone versioning as proposed by
>>>>>> a member of the community.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More I have to think about it, more uneasy I feel. One would have
>>>>>>> expected to see some activemq6/hornetq presence at apachecon for
>>>>>>> instance. I don't see any efforts to build a community besides this
>>>>>>> 'evolution' from activemq5. Are there breakout sessions planned at the
>>>>>>> redhat summit? How is the community going to grow?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How does any open source community grow?  We will promote the project
>>>>>> and invite the existing ActiveMQ community and beyond to try it out, get
>>>>>> involved, raise JIRAs, request features and all the goodness that open
>>>>>> source brings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am totally confused. You inform us that you will "follow up with a
>>>>>>> new RC based on the 6.0.0.M# versioning". Ok, and then what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no need for confusion.  Hopefully we will release 6.0.0.M1, and
>>>>>> we will have something concrete to discuss and for the community to try
>>>>>> out. We can incrementally address migration concerns as they arise in
>>>>>> subsequent milestones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 03/24/2015 08:59 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I realise there is still some anxiety, but the general consensus seems
>>>>>>>> to be to move forward with the ActiveMQ 6.0.0.M#. I'd like to continue
>>>>>>>> moving forward with getting an initial release of the HornetQ code
>>>>>>>> donation out there for people to use and evaluate. I'll follow up with
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> new RC based on 6.0.0.M# versioning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 24/03/15 12:07, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I actually fully agree with your statement in principle. Personally, I
>>>>>>>>> would be all for it, we did the same kind of rewrite in Camel when we
>>>>>>>>> moved from 1.x to 2.0, and it was a long and painful process. Speaking
>>>>>>>>> of which there were talks about a Camel 3.0 for at least 3 years that
>>>>>>>>> I am quite skeptical of.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In this case, hornetq is actually a completely different product,
>>>>>>>>> voted into the community by a vendor who has the vast majority of the
>>>>>>>>> pmc votes. Even that would not matter that much if the rest of the
>>>>>>>>> community would buy into the vision of hornetq morphing into the next
>>>>>>>>> amq, more or less a drop in replacement as others stated in the
>>>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your analogy with Apollo is exactly what I mean. As much as I like the
>>>>>>>>> elegance of scala I did not buy into its ability to catalyse a
>>>>>>>>> community. If enough users jump off the activemq 5.x wagon and its
>>>>>>>>> successor doesn't get enough steam, then activemq would reach a "dead
>>>>>>>>> end".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't know what the future would bring. And honestly, I don't know
>>>>>>>>> what the best choice is. Based on my previous experience, I choose to
>>>>>>>>> err on the conservative side, yet I wish for the best.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The onus is on the new podling to build a community. The fact that it
>>>>>>>>> was adopted by the activemq project doesn't mean that it must use the
>>>>>>>>> same name, it means that the activemq pmc took on the duty of
>>>>>>>>> mentoring the new committers (past example, among others: smx kernel
>>>>>>>>> moving to felix and then going tlp).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Speaking of mentoring, it is not something that can be imposed.
>>>>>>>>> Personally, I have never been asked anything by new committers in the
>>>>>>>>> activemq community. I do however mentor other communities. Tinkerpop
>>>>>>>>> is such an example, and man, it's a joy, the project is growing well
>>>>>>>>> and the technology is awesome. There are other examples where it
>>>>>>>>> doesn't work so well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bottom line, activemq6 must build a community. With a different name
>>>>>>>>> it could prove that it's capable of doing it on its own. This way it's
>>>>>>>>> stealing from the activemq5 community. That's fine, but then address
>>>>>>>>> its needs and make the users happy: seamless migration, near drop in
>>>>>>>>> replacement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 03/23/2015 10:43 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that a different name would mean a different project.
>>>>>>>>>> IIUC AMQ accepted the code so not having it turn into amq-xxx seems a
>>>>>>>>>> bit odd to me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is stopping all the non-jboss-employees (yes, showing my age
>>>>>>>>>> here) from enthusiastically digging into the code and adapting from
>>>>>>>>>> amq 5 or implementing anew all the missing bits? My limited
>>>>>>>>>> understanding is that the amq 5 broker sort of reached a dead end and
>>>>>>>>>> needed a rewrite rather than incremental improvement, first Apollo
>>>>>>>>>> tried to do it in Scala which not enough people understood, and now
>>>>>>>>>> there's a new bunch of java code to look at.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that one of the roles of the preexisting committers is
>>>>>>>>>> to help the new ones learn about apache.  What better way than by
>>>>>>>>>> pitching in and working on the code together?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wishing I had time to actually contribute rather than just argue….
>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by dkulp
Ok, so here's a question.

For various reasons I interact with management types in various
companies. On two occasions, because of my affiliation with ActiveMQ I
have been asked for advice. They've been told by sales/marketing people
over whom the PMC has no influence that activemq6 is the future of
activemq, is faster, better, you name it, and a certain company stands
behind it and has all the consultants necessary to help them with the
transition.

What should my answer be?

If I believed that the community would eventually rally around
activemq6, I would be ok too. But I don't know that yet, and from past
experience I am quite skeptical. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

Bonus question: (aside from being ok with 6.x) what name to you think is
better: activemq-6.x or something like activemq-hornet-<version>? I.e.
if you were to choose/vote how would you vote?

Maybe we should take this in a separate [discuss] thread. And btw, these
kind of discussions clarify things and are in general a good thing for
the community.

Hadrian


On 03/24/2015 12:18 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:

>
>> On Mar 24, 2015, at 12:12 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Precisely. That's what I was trying to say.
>> So, it sounds to me that others too share my concerns and, RH excepted, the consensus is actually more on the opposite side, hornetq should use a different name (activemq-hornet or something).
>
>
> Well, no.   I’m not RH but I feel that the 6.0.0-M# number and sticking with ActiveMQ naming is fine.  :-)
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>>
>> True?
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>> On 03/24/2015 12:02 PM, Jamie G. wrote:
>>> Then it sounds like calling it org.apache.activemq.hornetq would have
>>> made the most sense here.
>>>
>>> Easy, straightforward naming. No one gets confused.
>>>
>>> When Servicemix Kernel went to Apache Felix we rebranded as Apache
>>> Felix Karaf. The transition seemed to make sense to all users. We kept
>>> the name when the project went top level. If the virgo project was to
>>> be donated to Karaf, I'd suspect we'd call it org.apache.karaf.virgo
>>> instead of Karaf 5.0.
>>>
>>> My 2 cents CAD,
>>> Jamie
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Martyn Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Surely that is exactly where we have come from with HornetQ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 24/03/15 14:59, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly some mentoring is badly needed :(.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's my suggestion then, let's see how you like it. Ask the ActiveMQ pmc
>>>>> to change the name from activemq6 to something else. Prove that you can
>>>>> build a community around the project independent of the perception to be an
>>>>> upgrade of activemq.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you'll have my full support. WDYT?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/24/2015 10:28 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24/03/15 13:26, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's my point :). How do you define general consensus?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By general consensus, I meant that the number of people who replied in
>>>>>> favour of milestone releases is greater than (n / 2).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This very much looks like HornetQ taking over ActiveMQ. It very much
>>>>>>> looks to me like two different groups doing their own thing
>>>>>>> independently on the same mailing list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not sure how you have come to that conclusion.  I am merely
>>>>>> proposing a vote on an RC using the milestone versioning as proposed by
>>>>>> a member of the community.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More I have to think about it, more uneasy I feel. One would have
>>>>>>> expected to see some activemq6/hornetq presence at apachecon for
>>>>>>> instance. I don't see any efforts to build a community besides this
>>>>>>> 'evolution' from activemq5. Are there breakout sessions planned at the
>>>>>>> redhat summit? How is the community going to grow?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How does any open source community grow?  We will promote the project
>>>>>> and invite the existing ActiveMQ community and beyond to try it out, get
>>>>>> involved, raise JIRAs, request features and all the goodness that open
>>>>>> source brings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am totally confused. You inform us that you will "follow up with a
>>>>>>> new RC based on the 6.0.0.M# versioning". Ok, and then what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no need for confusion.  Hopefully we will release 6.0.0.M1, and
>>>>>> we will have something concrete to discuss and for the community to try
>>>>>> out. We can incrementally address migration concerns as they arise in
>>>>>> subsequent milestones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 03/24/2015 08:59 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I realise there is still some anxiety, but the general consensus seems
>>>>>>>> to be to move forward with the ActiveMQ 6.0.0.M#. I'd like to continue
>>>>>>>> moving forward with getting an initial release of the HornetQ code
>>>>>>>> donation out there for people to use and evaluate. I'll follow up with
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> new RC based on 6.0.0.M# versioning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 24/03/15 12:07, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I actually fully agree with your statement in principle. Personally, I
>>>>>>>>> would be all for it, we did the same kind of rewrite in Camel when we
>>>>>>>>> moved from 1.x to 2.0, and it was a long and painful process. Speaking
>>>>>>>>> of which there were talks about a Camel 3.0 for at least 3 years that
>>>>>>>>> I am quite skeptical of.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In this case, hornetq is actually a completely different product,
>>>>>>>>> voted into the community by a vendor who has the vast majority of the
>>>>>>>>> pmc votes. Even that would not matter that much if the rest of the
>>>>>>>>> community would buy into the vision of hornetq morphing into the next
>>>>>>>>> amq, more or less a drop in replacement as others stated in the
>>>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your analogy with Apollo is exactly what I mean. As much as I like the
>>>>>>>>> elegance of scala I did not buy into its ability to catalyse a
>>>>>>>>> community. If enough users jump off the activemq 5.x wagon and its
>>>>>>>>> successor doesn't get enough steam, then activemq would reach a "dead
>>>>>>>>> end".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't know what the future would bring. And honestly, I don't know
>>>>>>>>> what the best choice is. Based on my previous experience, I choose to
>>>>>>>>> err on the conservative side, yet I wish for the best.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The onus is on the new podling to build a community. The fact that it
>>>>>>>>> was adopted by the activemq project doesn't mean that it must use the
>>>>>>>>> same name, it means that the activemq pmc took on the duty of
>>>>>>>>> mentoring the new committers (past example, among others: smx kernel
>>>>>>>>> moving to felix and then going tlp).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Speaking of mentoring, it is not something that can be imposed.
>>>>>>>>> Personally, I have never been asked anything by new committers in the
>>>>>>>>> activemq community. I do however mentor other communities. Tinkerpop
>>>>>>>>> is such an example, and man, it's a joy, the project is growing well
>>>>>>>>> and the technology is awesome. There are other examples where it
>>>>>>>>> doesn't work so well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bottom line, activemq6 must build a community. With a different name
>>>>>>>>> it could prove that it's capable of doing it on its own. This way it's
>>>>>>>>> stealing from the activemq5 community. That's fine, but then address
>>>>>>>>> its needs and make the users happy: seamless migration, near drop in
>>>>>>>>> replacement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 03/23/2015 10:43 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that a different name would mean a different project.
>>>>>>>>>> IIUC AMQ accepted the code so not having it turn into amq-xxx seems a
>>>>>>>>>> bit odd to me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is stopping all the non-jboss-employees (yes, showing my age
>>>>>>>>>> here) from enthusiastically digging into the code and adapting from
>>>>>>>>>> amq 5 or implementing anew all the missing bits? My limited
>>>>>>>>>> understanding is that the amq 5 broker sort of reached a dead end and
>>>>>>>>>> needed a rewrite rather than incremental improvement, first Apollo
>>>>>>>>>> tried to do it in Scala which not enough people understood, and now
>>>>>>>>>> there's a new bunch of java code to look at.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that one of the roles of the preexisting committers is
>>>>>>>>>> to help the new ones learn about apache.  What better way than by
>>>>>>>>>> pitching in and working on the code together?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wishing I had time to actually contribute rather than just argue….
>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by artnaseef
That's what I thought too. And if I recall correctly I gave a binding +1
vote back then. Turns out that the reality is different than I
understood it.

I does feel, like James said, 'bait and switch'. Is it?

Hadrian


On 03/24/2015 12:10 PM, artnaseef wrote:

> Thinking about the issue of community and community-building, I agree with
> Hadrian here.
>
> HornetQ could have been its own project, built-up its own community
> (including winning over members from the AMQ community who are behind it)
> and started on its own footing.  There's nothing that would have prevented
> it from following the same technical path outside of the ActiveMQ brand,
> even getting to a place where it could replace ActiveMQ.
>
> As an example of the importance of community to this process -- the plan to
> use the -M# naming requires community involvement to be a success.  Yet, so
> far, I haven't seen much community involvement in HornetQ and the effort.
>
> And to Jamie Goodyear's point, what are the benefits to the ActiveMQ
> community?
>
> When I saw the call to accept the donation of HornetQ into ActiveMQ, I
> thought it mean pulling parts of the HornetQ code base into the existing
> ActiveMQ code base.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693736.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)

artnaseef
In reply to this post by Hadrian Zbarcea
What will it take for HornetQ to become ActiveMQ-6?  That question keeps coming to mind.

At first, I was looking at the question strictly from a technical perspective.  But considering the community and Apache involvement, the answer to that question becomes more complex.

Naming releases of HornetQ at activemq-6.0.0-M1 presumes that HornetQ will succeed to replace ActiveMQ, and acts as a warning to all activemq users that the change is coming.  But what if it does not succeed?  Either on technical merits or on building community?

The right path from the beginning has always been the incubator path.  Let HornetQ prove itself as an Apache project and viable alternative to ActiveMQ without any attempt at using the ActiveMQ brand.

Since HornetQ has been donated into ActiveMQ, we could certainly look to take some of the code from HornetQ and merge it into the existing ActiveMQ code base.

No matter how we move forward, the issue of building community and HornetQ proving itself is the same.  So, the question then becomes - what benefit is there to ActiveMQ and the ActiveMQ community?  If we cannot enumerate a valid benefit for the community, then it does not belong there.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

David Jencks
I think that a separate hornetQ project is a clear declaration that activemq has no long term future.   My understanding of the situation is quite limited, but since there's already been one attempt to replace the broker (apollo) and no attempt to modernize the existing broker, I'd guess that it is not feasible. After apollo, I haven't seen the existing amq community start a new broker project inside activemq, it's been maybe a couple years, so I expect it won't happen.  so, sure hornetQ could be a different project, mine some external code from amq, and wait for amq to die.  As I tried to indicate before, the only real way forward I see is for the existing amq community to get behind making the former hornetQ codebase a real amq 5 replacement.  What if you put the same amount of energy into adapting some amq code to hornetQ as you do objecting to it's presence?    I don't understand why everyone isn't saying, "wow, someone just gave us a many-dev-years of code advanced broker, look at all the work I don't have to do!!, what can I do to help take advantage of it?"

thanks
david jencks

On Mar 24, 2015, at 12:36 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:

> What will it take for HornetQ to become ActiveMQ-6?  That question keeps
> coming to mind.
>
> At first, I was looking at the question strictly from a technical
> perspective.  But considering the community and Apache involvement, the
> answer to that question becomes more complex.
>
> Naming releases of HornetQ at activemq-6.0.0-M1 presumes that HornetQ will
> succeed to replace ActiveMQ, and acts as a warning to all activemq users
> that the change is coming.  But what if it does not succeed?  Either on
> technical merits or on building community?
>
> The right path from the beginning has always been the incubator path.  Let
> HornetQ prove itself as an Apache project and viable alternative to ActiveMQ
> without any attempt at using the ActiveMQ brand.
>
> Since HornetQ has been donated into ActiveMQ, we could certainly look to
> take some of the code from HornetQ and merge it into the existing ActiveMQ
> code base.
>
> No matter how we move forward, the issue of building community and HornetQ
> proving itself is the same.  So, the question then becomes - what benefit is
> there to ActiveMQ and the ActiveMQ community?  If we cannot enumerate a
> valid benefit for the community, then it does not belong there.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693742.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)

artnaseef
I don't see how a separate hornetQ project is a clear declaration of ActiveMQ's future, nor why that matters to the discussion.

Wanting to engage the existing ActiveMQ community to the benefit of HornetQ is understandable, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.  Especially for ActiveMQ and its community.

On the topic of starting a new broker project - do we need a *new* broker project?

What problems are we solving?  And for whom are we solving them?

By the way - we already have a "many-dev-years of code advanced broker".  It's called ActiveMQ, and it is very popular.

And, back to the core question at hand.  What benefit does the ActiveMQ community obtain from this path?  Any attempt to move HornetQ forward as ActiveMQ-6.0.0-M1 without addressing that question is lacking merit.

Oh, and for the record - I personally am interested in HornetQ and may contribute to the project wherever it lives, so the question-at-hand isn't whether we are helping to move HornetQ forward.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)

andytaylor
In reply to this post by David Jencks
+1 and we have already started mining some of the amq5 code and this
will continue. Whats great about HornetQ is its engine, its threading
model, io and journal. take this core and take the functionality that
amq5 has and I think you will end up with a great project and also allow
a path for future development for the ActiveMQ community and so the name
should reflect that in one way or another. I dont see this as any
different from what 'ActiveMQ Apollo' tried to achieve.

On 24/03/15 18:53, David Jencks wrote:
> I think that a separate hornetQ project is a clear declaration that activemq has no long term future.   My understanding of the situation is quite limited, but since there's already been one attempt to replace the broker (apollo) and no attempt to modernize the existing broker, I'd guess that it is not feasible. After apollo, I haven't seen the existing amq community start a new broker project inside activemq, it's been maybe a couple years, so I expect it won't happen.  so, sure hornetQ could be a different project, mine some external code from amq, and wait for amq to die.  As I tried to indicate before, the only real way forward I see is for the existing amq community to get behind making the former hornetQ codebase a real amq 5 replacement.  What if you put the same amount of energy into adapting some amq code to hornetQ as you do objecting to it's presence?    I don't understand why everyone isn't saying, "wow, someone just gave us a many-dev-years of code advanced broker, loo
 k
 at all the work I don't have to do!!, what can I do to help take advantage of it?"

>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Mar 24, 2015, at 12:36 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> What will it take for HornetQ to become ActiveMQ-6?  That question keeps
>> coming to mind.
>>
>> At first, I was looking at the question strictly from a technical
>> perspective.  But considering the community and Apache involvement, the
>> answer to that question becomes more complex.
>>
>> Naming releases of HornetQ at activemq-6.0.0-M1 presumes that HornetQ will
>> succeed to replace ActiveMQ, and acts as a warning to all activemq users
>> that the change is coming.  But what if it does not succeed?  Either on
>> technical merits or on building community?
>>
>> The right path from the beginning has always been the incubator path.  Let
>> HornetQ prove itself as an Apache project and viable alternative to ActiveMQ
>> without any attempt at using the ActiveMQ brand.
>>
>> Since HornetQ has been donated into ActiveMQ, we could certainly look to
>> take some of the code from HornetQ and merge it into the existing ActiveMQ
>> code base.
>>
>> No matter how we move forward, the issue of building community and HornetQ
>> proving itself is the same.  So, the question then becomes - what benefit is
>> there to ActiveMQ and the ActiveMQ community?  If we cannot enumerate a
>> valid benefit for the community, then it does not belong there.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693742.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

123456