You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> on 2017/12/13 21:59:20 UTC
[VOTE] Make Apollo Read Only and deprecate it
I would like to propose making Apollo a read only project.
People can always fork it and maintain it themselves... but as of now
we haven't had anyone maintaining for the past 2 years.
We would make it read only... and would make it clear on the website
it's been deprecated and its repository is read only.
If you are positive about this, please send your +1.
If you have a reason to keep it active, please send your -1.
If you don't care and really want to express your opinion your 0.
I'm not sending a discuss thread for this, as I would like to keep
this voting an open conversation.. so if you have other options to how
we should do, I'm open for that here.
I am aiming to keep this thread open for 3 days.
Here is my +1 vote on making the git read only and deprecating it.
Re: [VOTE] Make Apollo Read Only and deprecate it
Posted by Howard Gao <ho...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Francois Papon <
francois.papon@openobject.fr> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
>
> Le 14/12/2017 à 01:59, Clebert Suconic a écrit :
> > I would like to propose making Apollo a read only project.
> >
> > People can always fork it and maintain it themselves... but as of now
> > we haven't had anyone maintaining for the past 2 years.
> >
> > We would make it read only... and would make it clear on the website
> > it's been deprecated and its repository is read only.
> >
> >
> > If you are positive about this, please send your +1.
> >
> > If you have a reason to keep it active, please send your -1.
> >
> > If you don't care and really want to express your opinion your 0.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm not sending a discuss thread for this, as I would like to keep
> > this voting an open conversation.. so if you have other options to how
> > we should do, I'm open for that here.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am aiming to keep this thread open for 3 days.
> >
> >
> > Here is my +1 vote on making the git read only and deprecating it.
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Make Apollo Read Only and deprecate it
Posted by Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr>.
+1 (non-binding)
Le 14/12/2017 à 01:59, Clebert Suconic a écrit :
> I would like to propose making Apollo a read only project.
>
> People can always fork it and maintain it themselves... but as of now
> we haven't had anyone maintaining for the past 2 years.
>
> We would make it read only... and would make it clear on the website
> it's been deprecated and its repository is read only.
>
>
> If you are positive about this, please send your +1.
>
> If you have a reason to keep it active, please send your -1.
>
> If you don't care and really want to express your opinion your 0.
>
>
>
>
> I'm not sending a discuss thread for this, as I would like to keep
> this voting an open conversation.. so if you have other options to how
> we should do, I'm open for that here.
>
>
>
> I am aiming to keep this thread open for 3 days.
>
>
> Here is my +1 vote on making the git read only and deprecating it.
Re: [VOTE] Make Apollo Read Only and deprecate it
Posted by Arthur Naseef <ar...@amlinv.com>.
+1
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I would like to propose making Apollo a read only project.
>
> People can always fork it and maintain it themselves... but as of now
> we haven't had anyone maintaining for the past 2 years.
>
> We would make it read only... and would make it clear on the website
> it's been deprecated and its repository is read only.
>
>
> If you are positive about this, please send your +1.
>
> If you have a reason to keep it active, please send your -1.
>
> If you don't care and really want to express your opinion your 0.
>
>
>
>
> I'm not sending a discuss thread for this, as I would like to keep
> this voting an open conversation.. so if you have other options to how
> we should do, I'm open for that here.
>
>
>
> I am aiming to keep this thread open for 3 days.
>
>
> Here is my +1 vote on making the git read only and deprecating it.
>
Re: [VOTE] Make Apollo Read Only and deprecate it
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
+1 on making it clear that the project is deprecated. The main thing in my
opinion is the message we send on the website and email lists. However, I
do still think that making the repository read only makes sense.
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > What exactly is the point of this making it read-only? And how exactly do
> > you suggest it be deprecated? Given that the vast majority of users
> > probably would not see any evidence of either of these actions, I don't
> > understand the point of taking these actions.
> >
> > As I stated previously in the other discussion, it would be a far more
> > effective communication to all users if the link to the Apollo website
> was
> > moved beneath a heading named 'Attic' or 'Retired'. I'm not being
> obtuse, I
> > am trying to understand your goal and suggesting a more visible statement
> > to users.
> >
>
> It was my understanding from the other discussion we had about this,
> that the term attic wasn't applicable in this case.
> so, what you're talking... by putting to a heading name "Attic" or
> "Retired" is what I refer here as "deprecate". If you like a different
> term to inform users I'm totally fine. what I'm trying to do here is
> inform users.
>
> You would prefer to keep the git repository open for commits and just
> make the announce and move it on the website? I'm fine with that...
>
> What I'm putting here to vote is the "deprecation" of Apollo, which
> could be done the way you suggest here.. being an operational detail
> on that case.
>
Re: [VOTE] Make Apollo Read Only and deprecate it
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
Agreed, in addition to the changes to the website to make it clear that
Apollo is no longer under active development, this suggestion also sends a
clear message to the user.
Bruce
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > why not move the master branch to another name and then have the master
> > branch just contain a README with some info about it being deprecated.
> Then
> > if anyone comes across it they can use it if they want but understand its
> > not maintained.
>
>
> Good idea.. it's exactly what I did with hornetq. that's in fact more
> effective than removing everyone from committer's list.
>
>
> https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq
>
--
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
Re: [VOTE] Make Apollo Read Only and deprecate it
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> why not move the master branch to another name and then have the master
> branch just contain a README with some info about it being deprecated. Then
> if anyone comes across it they can use it if they want but understand its
> not maintained.
Good idea.. it's exactly what I did with hornetq. that's in fact more
effective than removing everyone from committer's list.
https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq
Re: [VOTE] Make Apollo Read Only and deprecate it
Posted by Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>.
why not move the master branch to another name and then have the master
branch just contain a README with some info about it being deprecated. Then
if anyone comes across it they can use it if they want but understand its
not maintained.
Andy
On 14 December 2017 at 15:25, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to clarify, the official Apache Attic (https://attic.apache.org/)
> does
> not apply to a single module from within a project, it is only for use by
> an entire project that votes to dissolve. The use of a section heading on
> the website named 'Attic' or 'Retired' is completely different, has nothing
> to do with the Apache Attic and serves as a communication to users via the
> website.
>
> +1 for communicating to users via the website to make it clear that Apollo
> is no longer under active development.
>
> +0 for making the repo read-only; I can take it or leave it because it will
> not provide any tangible impact to users.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > What exactly is the point of this making it read-only? And how exactly
> do
> > > you suggest it be deprecated? Given that the vast majority of users
> > > probably would not see any evidence of either of these actions, I don't
> > > understand the point of taking these actions.
> > >
> > > As I stated previously in the other discussion, it would be a far more
> > > effective communication to all users if the link to the Apollo website
> > was
> > > moved beneath a heading named 'Attic' or 'Retired'. I'm not being
> > obtuse, I
> > > am trying to understand your goal and suggesting a more visible
> statement
> > > to users.
> > >
> >
> > It was my understanding from the other discussion we had about this,
> > that the term attic wasn't applicable in this case.
> > so, what you're talking... by putting to a heading name "Attic" or
> > "Retired" is what I refer here as "deprecate". If you like a different
> > term to inform users I'm totally fine. what I'm trying to do here is
> > inform users.
> >
> > You would prefer to keep the git repository open for commits and just
> > make the announce and move it on the website? I'm fine with that...
> >
> > What I'm putting here to vote is the "deprecation" of Apollo, which
> > could be done the way you suggest here.. being an operational detail
> > on that case.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
>
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>
Re: [VOTE] Make Apollo Read Only and deprecate it
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
Just to clarify, the official Apache Attic (https://attic.apache.org/) does
not apply to a single module from within a project, it is only for use by
an entire project that votes to dissolve. The use of a section heading on
the website named 'Attic' or 'Retired' is completely different, has nothing
to do with the Apache Attic and serves as a communication to users via the
website.
+1 for communicating to users via the website to make it clear that Apollo
is no longer under active development.
+0 for making the repo read-only; I can take it or leave it because it will
not provide any tangible impact to users.
Bruce
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > What exactly is the point of this making it read-only? And how exactly do
> > you suggest it be deprecated? Given that the vast majority of users
> > probably would not see any evidence of either of these actions, I don't
> > understand the point of taking these actions.
> >
> > As I stated previously in the other discussion, it would be a far more
> > effective communication to all users if the link to the Apollo website
> was
> > moved beneath a heading named 'Attic' or 'Retired'. I'm not being
> obtuse, I
> > am trying to understand your goal and suggesting a more visible statement
> > to users.
> >
>
> It was my understanding from the other discussion we had about this,
> that the term attic wasn't applicable in this case.
> so, what you're talking... by putting to a heading name "Attic" or
> "Retired" is what I refer here as "deprecate". If you like a different
> term to inform users I'm totally fine. what I'm trying to do here is
> inform users.
>
> You would prefer to keep the git repository open for commits and just
> make the announce and move it on the website? I'm fine with that...
>
> What I'm putting here to vote is the "deprecation" of Apollo, which
> could be done the way you suggest here.. being an operational detail
> on that case.
>
--
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
Re: [VOTE] Make Apollo Read Only and deprecate it
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What exactly is the point of this making it read-only? And how exactly do
> you suggest it be deprecated? Given that the vast majority of users
> probably would not see any evidence of either of these actions, I don't
> understand the point of taking these actions.
>
> As I stated previously in the other discussion, it would be a far more
> effective communication to all users if the link to the Apollo website was
> moved beneath a heading named 'Attic' or 'Retired'. I'm not being obtuse, I
> am trying to understand your goal and suggesting a more visible statement
> to users.
>
It was my understanding from the other discussion we had about this,
that the term attic wasn't applicable in this case.
so, what you're talking... by putting to a heading name "Attic" or
"Retired" is what I refer here as "deprecate". If you like a different
term to inform users I'm totally fine. what I'm trying to do here is
inform users.
You would prefer to keep the git repository open for commits and just
make the announce and move it on the website? I'm fine with that...
What I'm putting here to vote is the "deprecation" of Apollo, which
could be done the way you suggest here.. being an operational detail
on that case.
Re: [VOTE] Make Apollo Read Only and deprecate it
Posted by Richard Kettelerij <ri...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding)
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for updating the website to communicate to users that Apollo is no
> longer in active development.
>
> +1 for going ahead and making repo read-only. If on-going interest in
> making changes arises, it could start out as a forked repo and then get
> sparked re-enabled.
>
>
> On 12/14/17 9:16 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
>
>> +1 for both the website update and making it read only
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Arthur Naseef <ar...@amlinv.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>>
>>> Let's do both. Website update and making the repo read-only.
>>>
>>> Art
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:16 PM, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> What exactly is the point of this making it read-only? And how exactly do
>>>> you suggest it be deprecated? Given that the vast majority of users
>>>> probably would not see any evidence of either of these actions, I don't
>>>> understand the point of taking these actions.
>>>>
>>>> As I stated previously in the other discussion, it would be a far more
>>>> effective communication to all users if the link to the Apollo website
>>>>
>>> was
>>>
>>>> moved beneath a heading named 'Attic' or 'Retired'. I'm not being
>>>>
>>> obtuse, I
>>>
>>>> am trying to understand your goal and suggesting a more visible
>>>> statement
>>>> to users.
>>>>
>>>> Bruce
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would like to propose making Apollo a read only project.
>>>>>
>>>>> People can always fork it and maintain it themselves... but as of now
>>>>> we haven't had anyone maintaining for the past 2 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> We would make it read only... and would make it clear on the website
>>>>> it's been deprecated and its repository is read only.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are positive about this, please send your +1.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have a reason to keep it active, please send your -1.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't care and really want to express your opinion your 0.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sending a discuss thread for this, as I would like to keep
>>>>> this voting an open conversation.. so if you have other options to how
>>>>> we should do, I'm open for that here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am aiming to keep this thread open for 3 days.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is my +1 vote on making the git read only and deprecating it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> perl -e 'print
>>>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
>>>> );'
>>>>
>>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
>>>> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Make Apollo Read Only and deprecate it
Posted by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1 for updating the website to communicate to users that Apollo is no
longer in active development.
+1 for going ahead and making repo read-only. If on-going interest in
making changes arises, it could start out as a forked repo and then get
sparked re-enabled.
On 12/14/17 9:16 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
> +1 for both the website update and making it read only
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Arthur Naseef <ar...@amlinv.com> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Let's do both. Website update and making the repo read-only.
>>
>> Art
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:16 PM, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What exactly is the point of this making it read-only? And how exactly do
>>> you suggest it be deprecated? Given that the vast majority of users
>>> probably would not see any evidence of either of these actions, I don't
>>> understand the point of taking these actions.
>>>
>>> As I stated previously in the other discussion, it would be a far more
>>> effective communication to all users if the link to the Apollo website
>> was
>>> moved beneath a heading named 'Attic' or 'Retired'. I'm not being
>> obtuse, I
>>> am trying to understand your goal and suggesting a more visible statement
>>> to users.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would like to propose making Apollo a read only project.
>>>>
>>>> People can always fork it and maintain it themselves... but as of now
>>>> we haven't had anyone maintaining for the past 2 years.
>>>>
>>>> We would make it read only... and would make it clear on the website
>>>> it's been deprecated and its repository is read only.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are positive about this, please send your +1.
>>>>
>>>> If you have a reason to keep it active, please send your -1.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't care and really want to express your opinion your 0.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sending a discuss thread for this, as I would like to keep
>>>> this voting an open conversation.. so if you have other options to how
>>>> we should do, I'm open for that here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am aiming to keep this thread open for 3 days.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is my +1 vote on making the git read only and deprecating it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> perl -e 'print
>>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
>>>
>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
>>> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Make Apollo Read Only and deprecate it
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
+1 for both the website update and making it read only
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Arthur Naseef <ar...@amlinv.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> Let's do both. Website update and making the repo read-only.
>
> Art
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:16 PM, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > What exactly is the point of this making it read-only? And how exactly do
> > you suggest it be deprecated? Given that the vast majority of users
> > probably would not see any evidence of either of these actions, I don't
> > understand the point of taking these actions.
> >
> > As I stated previously in the other discussion, it would be a far more
> > effective communication to all users if the link to the Apollo website
> was
> > moved beneath a heading named 'Attic' or 'Retired'. I'm not being
> obtuse, I
> > am trying to understand your goal and suggesting a more visible statement
> > to users.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to propose making Apollo a read only project.
> > >
> > > People can always fork it and maintain it themselves... but as of now
> > > we haven't had anyone maintaining for the past 2 years.
> > >
> > > We would make it read only... and would make it clear on the website
> > > it's been deprecated and its repository is read only.
> > >
> > >
> > > If you are positive about this, please send your +1.
> > >
> > > If you have a reason to keep it active, please send your -1.
> > >
> > > If you don't care and really want to express your opinion your 0.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not sending a discuss thread for this, as I would like to keep
> > > this voting an open conversation.. so if you have other options to how
> > > we should do, I'm open for that here.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am aiming to keep this thread open for 3 days.
> > >
> > >
> > > Here is my +1 vote on making the git read only and deprecating it.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > perl -e 'print
> > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
> >
> > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Make Apollo Read Only and deprecate it
Posted by Arthur Naseef <ar...@amlinv.com>.
+1
Let's do both. Website update and making the repo read-only.
Art
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:16 PM, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> What exactly is the point of this making it read-only? And how exactly do
> you suggest it be deprecated? Given that the vast majority of users
> probably would not see any evidence of either of these actions, I don't
> understand the point of taking these actions.
>
> As I stated previously in the other discussion, it would be a far more
> effective communication to all users if the link to the Apollo website was
> moved beneath a heading named 'Attic' or 'Retired'. I'm not being obtuse, I
> am trying to understand your goal and suggesting a more visible statement
> to users.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I would like to propose making Apollo a read only project.
> >
> > People can always fork it and maintain it themselves... but as of now
> > we haven't had anyone maintaining for the past 2 years.
> >
> > We would make it read only... and would make it clear on the website
> > it's been deprecated and its repository is read only.
> >
> >
> > If you are positive about this, please send your +1.
> >
> > If you have a reason to keep it active, please send your -1.
> >
> > If you don't care and really want to express your opinion your 0.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm not sending a discuss thread for this, as I would like to keep
> > this voting an open conversation.. so if you have other options to how
> > we should do, I'm open for that here.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am aiming to keep this thread open for 3 days.
> >
> >
> > Here is my +1 vote on making the git read only and deprecating it.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
>
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>
Re: [VOTE] Make Apollo Read Only and deprecate it
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
What exactly is the point of this making it read-only? And how exactly do
you suggest it be deprecated? Given that the vast majority of users
probably would not see any evidence of either of these actions, I don't
understand the point of taking these actions.
As I stated previously in the other discussion, it would be a far more
effective communication to all users if the link to the Apollo website was
moved beneath a heading named 'Attic' or 'Retired'. I'm not being obtuse, I
am trying to understand your goal and suggesting a more visible statement
to users.
Bruce
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I would like to propose making Apollo a read only project.
>
> People can always fork it and maintain it themselves... but as of now
> we haven't had anyone maintaining for the past 2 years.
>
> We would make it read only... and would make it clear on the website
> it's been deprecated and its repository is read only.
>
>
> If you are positive about this, please send your +1.
>
> If you have a reason to keep it active, please send your -1.
>
> If you don't care and really want to express your opinion your 0.
>
>
>
>
> I'm not sending a discuss thread for this, as I would like to keep
> this voting an open conversation.. so if you have other options to how
> we should do, I'm open for that here.
>
>
>
> I am aiming to keep this thread open for 3 days.
>
>
> Here is my +1 vote on making the git read only and deprecating it.
>
--
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder