You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> on 2015/03/10 16:14:21 UTC
[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
Hello all.
I've cut a first release candidate of the ActiveMQ-6 project.
This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for
AMQP, STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
--
The release notes can be found here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
The binary distributions can be found here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1035/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
The source archives can be found here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1035/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
The Maven repository is here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1035/
The source tag:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
The project website for that version has been staged to:
http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
[ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
Here's my (non-binding) +1
Regards
Martyn
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC2)
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I have sent a PR with updates to that page on the docs. It should be
easier to read it now.
I believe Martyn will take this update before the next cut:
https://github.com/clebertsuconic/activemq-6/blob/master/docs/user-manual/en/configuration-index.md
I even generated the docs into mobi, epub and PDF and they all look
much better and easier to understand.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Robbie Gemmell
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I downloaded the src+bin tar.gz files, and gave the src build a run
> through and kicked the tyres on the binary. The NPE from RC1 when
> using an AMQP client is now fixed. In the docs the links to the
> configuration index now work, and the table there now links to the
> .html files rather than the .md files.
>
> For the docs, the project-info page near the start is still 404's.
>
> Looking at some of the diff since RC1, I noticed that some JSON
> related source files had their 'JSON licence' restored to them. They
> should be mentioned in the distro LICENCE files as a result, either
> including the license or pointing to it in the tree. The
> activemq-core-client jar has the ASLv2 included twice in its
> META-INF/LICENCE file, likely due to the appended-resources file for
> adding the licence for the JSON bits.
>
> There was a base64.txt licence file previously that went away; is that
> code no longer included?
>
> Robbie
>
> On 13 March 2015 at 14:05, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for the fast turnaround.
>>
>> NOTICE and LICENCE files look correct in both source and binary distros.
>>
>> source builds, tests run, resulting binary looks great.
>>
>> However, I found one Cat-x transitive dep that breaks the build.
>> I added an exclusion and the source builds find, so the dependency is
>> not required but it needs to be removed.
>>
>> Detail:
>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project activemq-rest: Could not
>> resolve dependencies for project
>> org.apache.activemq.rest:activemq-rest:jar:6.0.0: The repository
>> system is offline but the artifact
>> org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation:jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec:jar:1.0.1.Final
>> ..
>>
>> Resolution:
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>org.jboss.resteasy</groupId>
>> <artifactId>resteasy-jaxrs</artifactId>
>> <exclusions>
>> <exclusion><groupId>org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation</groupId><artifactId>jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec</artifactId>
>> </exclusion>
>> </exclusions>
>> </dependency>
>>
>> So this is another -1.
>>
>> However, with this issue fixed and no regressions - I am ready to +1
>> this release.
>>
>> Shout out to other pmc members - even if you don't intend to vote, can
>> you take a few moments to cast your eyes over the artifacts.
>> As this is a first release, we need many eyes to validate there are no
>> glaring omissions.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12 March 2015 at 21:30, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Hello all.
>>>
>>> I've cut a second release candidate of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 addressing the
>>> initial RC feedback from community members.
>>>
>>> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for AMQP,
>>> STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
>>>
>>>
>>> The release notes can be found here:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>>>
>>> The binary distributions can be found here:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>>
>>> The source archives can be found here:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>>
>>> The Maven repository is here:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/
>>>
>>> The source tag:
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>>>
>>> The project website for that version has been staged to:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>>>
>>> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>
>>> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Martyn
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC2)
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 13 March 2015 at 15:30, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There was a base64.txt licence file previously that went away; is that
> code no longer included?
>
>
> We are using the Base64 from here:
> http://iharder.sourceforge.net/current/java/base64/
>
>
> Where he states you can license it anyway you wanted, for that we
> removed the base64 license.
>
> Do you see any issues with it?
>
He says you dont need to worry about matching it up to another
license, just use it as its public domain, but that he will license it
to you under any reasonable license if contacted to ask for that. He
does say do anything you want with it, which possibly includes simply
using it with a different licence by yourself but I'm not sure on that
at all, IANAL. Asking on legal@ (or seeing if somoene else previosuly
did) might be the way to go.
I would personally just call out the that files were released into
public domain, as per
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#can-works-placed-in-the-public-domain-be-included-in-apache-products.
>
> Regarding the docs:
>
> I guess the website doc wasn't updated with the release, only on the
> distribution. We will update it before the final upload though.
>
It was the distribution that I tried, I'll admit I hadn't even got as
far down the email to notice the link to the website thus far :)
> I'm doing some work on that part now to convert everything to
> Markdown. So even the PDF format will have the links fixed.
>
>
>
> We will take a look at the licenses.. thanks again!
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Robbie Gemmell
> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I downloaded the src+bin tar.gz files, and gave the src build a run
>> through and kicked the tyres on the binary. The NPE from RC1 when
>> using an AMQP client is now fixed. In the docs the links to the
>> configuration index now work, and the table there now links to the
>> .html files rather than the .md files.
>>
>> For the docs, the project-info page near the start is still 404's.
>>
>> Looking at some of the diff since RC1, I noticed that some JSON
>> related source files had their 'JSON licence' restored to them. They
>> should be mentioned in the distro LICENCE files as a result, either
>> including the license or pointing to it in the tree. The
>> activemq-core-client jar has the ASLv2 included twice in its
>> META-INF/LICENCE file, likely due to the appended-resources file for
>> adding the licence for the JSON bits.
>>
>> There was a base64.txt licence file previously that went away; is that
>> code no longer included?
>>
>> Robbie
>>
>> On 13 March 2015 at 14:05, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks for the fast turnaround.
>>>
>>> NOTICE and LICENCE files look correct in both source and binary distros.
>>>
>>> source builds, tests run, resulting binary looks great.
>>>
>>> However, I found one Cat-x transitive dep that breaks the build.
>>> I added an exclusion and the source builds find, so the dependency is
>>> not required but it needs to be removed.
>>>
>>> Detail:
>>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project activemq-rest: Could not
>>> resolve dependencies for project
>>> org.apache.activemq.rest:activemq-rest:jar:6.0.0: The repository
>>> system is offline but the artifact
>>> org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation:jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec:jar:1.0.1.Final
>>> ..
>>>
>>> Resolution:
>>> <dependency>
>>> <groupId>org.jboss.resteasy</groupId>
>>> <artifactId>resteasy-jaxrs</artifactId>
>>> <exclusions>
>>> <exclusion><groupId>org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation</groupId><artifactId>jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec</artifactId>
>>> </exclusion>
>>> </exclusions>
>>> </dependency>
>>>
>>> So this is another -1.
>>>
>>> However, with this issue fixed and no regressions - I am ready to +1
>>> this release.
>>>
>>> Shout out to other pmc members - even if you don't intend to vote, can
>>> you take a few moments to cast your eyes over the artifacts.
>>> As this is a first release, we need many eyes to validate there are no
>>> glaring omissions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12 March 2015 at 21:30, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> Hello all.
>>>>
>>>> I've cut a second release candidate of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 addressing the
>>>> initial RC feedback from community members.
>>>>
>>>> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for AMQP,
>>>> STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The release notes can be found here:
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>>>>
>>>> The binary distributions can be found here:
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>>>
>>>> The source archives can be found here:
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>>>
>>>> The Maven repository is here:
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/
>>>>
>>>> The source tag:
>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>>>>
>>>> The project website for that version has been staged to:
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>>>>
>>>> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>
>>>> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Martyn
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC2)
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
> There was a base64.txt licence file previously that went away; is that
code no longer included?
We are using the Base64 from here:
http://iharder.sourceforge.net/current/java/base64/
Where he states you can license it anyway you wanted, for that we
removed the base64 license.
Do you see any issues with it?
Regarding the docs:
I guess the website doc wasn't updated with the release, only on the
distribution. We will update it before the final upload though.
I'm doing some work on that part now to convert everything to
Markdown. So even the PDF format will have the links fixed.
We will take a look at the licenses.. thanks again!
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Robbie Gemmell
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I downloaded the src+bin tar.gz files, and gave the src build a run
> through and kicked the tyres on the binary. The NPE from RC1 when
> using an AMQP client is now fixed. In the docs the links to the
> configuration index now work, and the table there now links to the
> .html files rather than the .md files.
>
> For the docs, the project-info page near the start is still 404's.
>
> Looking at some of the diff since RC1, I noticed that some JSON
> related source files had their 'JSON licence' restored to them. They
> should be mentioned in the distro LICENCE files as a result, either
> including the license or pointing to it in the tree. The
> activemq-core-client jar has the ASLv2 included twice in its
> META-INF/LICENCE file, likely due to the appended-resources file for
> adding the licence for the JSON bits.
>
> There was a base64.txt licence file previously that went away; is that
> code no longer included?
>
> Robbie
>
> On 13 March 2015 at 14:05, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for the fast turnaround.
>>
>> NOTICE and LICENCE files look correct in both source and binary distros.
>>
>> source builds, tests run, resulting binary looks great.
>>
>> However, I found one Cat-x transitive dep that breaks the build.
>> I added an exclusion and the source builds find, so the dependency is
>> not required but it needs to be removed.
>>
>> Detail:
>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project activemq-rest: Could not
>> resolve dependencies for project
>> org.apache.activemq.rest:activemq-rest:jar:6.0.0: The repository
>> system is offline but the artifact
>> org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation:jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec:jar:1.0.1.Final
>> ..
>>
>> Resolution:
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>org.jboss.resteasy</groupId>
>> <artifactId>resteasy-jaxrs</artifactId>
>> <exclusions>
>> <exclusion><groupId>org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation</groupId><artifactId>jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec</artifactId>
>> </exclusion>
>> </exclusions>
>> </dependency>
>>
>> So this is another -1.
>>
>> However, with this issue fixed and no regressions - I am ready to +1
>> this release.
>>
>> Shout out to other pmc members - even if you don't intend to vote, can
>> you take a few moments to cast your eyes over the artifacts.
>> As this is a first release, we need many eyes to validate there are no
>> glaring omissions.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12 March 2015 at 21:30, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Hello all.
>>>
>>> I've cut a second release candidate of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 addressing the
>>> initial RC feedback from community members.
>>>
>>> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for AMQP,
>>> STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
>>>
>>>
>>> The release notes can be found here:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>>>
>>> The binary distributions can be found here:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>>
>>> The source archives can be found here:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>>
>>> The Maven repository is here:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/
>>>
>>> The source tag:
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>>>
>>> The project website for that version has been staged to:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>>>
>>> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>
>>> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Martyn
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC2)
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
On 13/03/15 15:59, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>
> On 13/03/15 15:16, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>> I downloaded the src+bin tar.gz files, and gave the src build a run
>> through and kicked the tyres on the binary. The NPE from RC1 when
>> using an AMQP client is now fixed. In the docs the links to the
>> configuration index now work, and the table there now links to the
>> .html files rather than the .md files.
>>
>> For the docs, the project-info page near the start is still 404's.
> Thanks.
>>
>> Looking at some of the diff since RC1, I noticed that some JSON
>> related source files had their 'JSON licence' restored to them. They
>> should be mentioned in the distro LICENCE files as a result, either
>> including the license or pointing to it in the tree.
> Given that the activemq-core-client jar covers these source files it
> it's LICENSE, am I correct in assuming there is no need to add this
> again in the binary distribution? i.e. apache-activemq-6.0.0-bin i.e.
> we should only need to add this to the LICENSE file in the source
> distribution?
Nevermind... reading the documentation, it is implied that the license
will be needed in both places:
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep. We'll update.
Thanks.
>> The
>> activemq-core-client jar has the ASLv2 included twice in its
>> META-INF/LICENCE file, likely due to the appended-resources file for
>> adding the licence for the JSON bits.
> Yes. The build appears to append the license rather than overwrite as
> we had thought.
>>
>> There was a base64.txt licence file previously that went away; is that
>> code no longer included?
> Clebert already replied to this. But yes this is no longer included.
>>
>> Robbie
>>
>> On 13 March 2015 at 14:05, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks for the fast turnaround.
>>>
>>> NOTICE and LICENCE files look correct in both source and binary
>>> distros.
>>>
>>> source builds, tests run, resulting binary looks great.
>>>
>>> However, I found one Cat-x transitive dep that breaks the build.
>>> I added an exclusion and the source builds find, so the dependency is
>>> not required but it needs to be removed.
>>>
>>> Detail:
>>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project activemq-rest: Could not
>>> resolve dependencies for project
>>> org.apache.activemq.rest:activemq-rest:jar:6.0.0: The repository
>>> system is offline but the artifact
>>> org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation:jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec:jar:1.0.1.Final
>>>
>>> ..
>>>
>>> Resolution:
>>> <dependency>
>>> <groupId>org.jboss.resteasy</groupId>
>>> <artifactId>resteasy-jaxrs</artifactId>
>>> <exclusions>
>>> <exclusion><groupId>org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation</groupId><artifactId>jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec</artifactId>
>>> </exclusion>
>>> </exclusions>
>>> </dependency>
>>>
>>> So this is another -1.
>>>
>>> However, with this issue fixed and no regressions - I am ready to +1
>>> this release.
>>>
>>> Shout out to other pmc members - even if you don't intend to vote, can
>>> you take a few moments to cast your eyes over the artifacts.
>>> As this is a first release, we need many eyes to validate there are no
>>> glaring omissions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12 March 2015 at 21:30, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> Hello all.
>>>>
>>>> I've cut a second release candidate of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
>>>> addressing the
>>>> initial RC feedback from community members.
>>>>
>>>> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support
>>>> for AMQP,
>>>> STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The release notes can be found here:
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The binary distributions can be found here:
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The source archives can be found here:
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Maven repository is here:
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The source tag:
>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The project website for that version has been staged to:
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>>>>
>>>> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>
>>>> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Martyn
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC2)
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
On 13/03/15 16:15, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> On 13 March 2015 at 15:59, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 13/03/15 15:16, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>>> I downloaded the src+bin tar.gz files, and gave the src build a run
>>> through and kicked the tyres on the binary. The NPE from RC1 when
>>> using an AMQP client is now fixed. In the docs the links to the
>>> configuration index now work, and the table there now links to the
>>> .html files rather than the .md files.
>>>
>>> For the docs, the project-info page near the start is still 404's.
>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Looking at some of the diff since RC1, I noticed that some JSON
>>> related source files had their 'JSON licence' restored to them. They
>>> should be mentioned in the distro LICENCE files as a result, either
>>> including the license or pointing to it in the tree.
>> Given that the activemq-core-client jar covers these source files it it's
>> LICENSE, am I correct in assuming there is no need to add this again in the
>> binary distribution? i.e. apache-activemq-6.0.0-bin i.e. we should only
>> need to add this to the LICENSE file in the source distribution?
> I think it needs to be there (anyone else know otherwise?), and I
> would personally add it since the LICENSE file in the distribution
> root ultimately lets people know what terms the various included bits
> are under. The ones in the jars also need to be there because jars are
> also distributions themselves and people can/do use them in isolation
> (e.g from a maven repo).
Thanks Robbie. We'll include them in the source and binary distribution
(as well as the jars).
>
>>> The
>>> activemq-core-client jar has the ASLv2 included twice in its
>>> META-INF/LICENCE file, likely due to the appended-resources file for
>>> adding the licence for the JSON bits.
>> Yes. The build appears to append the license rather than overwrite as we
>> had thought.
>>>
>>> There was a base64.txt licence file previously that went away; is that
>>> code no longer included?
>> Clebert already replied to this. But yes this is no longer included.
>>
>>> Robbie
>>>
>>> On 13 March 2015 at 14:05, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Thanks for the fast turnaround.
>>>>
>>>> NOTICE and LICENCE files look correct in both source and binary distros.
>>>>
>>>> source builds, tests run, resulting binary looks great.
>>>>
>>>> However, I found one Cat-x transitive dep that breaks the build.
>>>> I added an exclusion and the source builds find, so the dependency is
>>>> not required but it needs to be removed.
>>>>
>>>> Detail:
>>>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project activemq-rest: Could not
>>>> resolve dependencies for project
>>>> org.apache.activemq.rest:activemq-rest:jar:6.0.0: The repository
>>>> system is offline but the artifact
>>>>
>>>> org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation:jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec:jar:1.0.1.Final
>>>> ..
>>>>
>>>> Resolution:
>>>> <dependency>
>>>> <groupId>org.jboss.resteasy</groupId>
>>>> <artifactId>resteasy-jaxrs</artifactId>
>>>> <exclusions>
>>>>
>>>> <exclusion><groupId>org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation</groupId><artifactId>jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec</artifactId>
>>>> </exclusion>
>>>> </exclusions>
>>>> </dependency>
>>>>
>>>> So this is another -1.
>>>>
>>>> However, with this issue fixed and no regressions - I am ready to +1
>>>> this release.
>>>>
>>>> Shout out to other pmc members - even if you don't intend to vote, can
>>>> you take a few moments to cast your eyes over the artifacts.
>>>> As this is a first release, we need many eyes to validate there are no
>>>> glaring omissions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12 March 2015 at 21:30, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hello all.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've cut a second release candidate of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 addressing
>>>>> the
>>>>> initial RC feedback from community members.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for
>>>>> AMQP,
>>>>> STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The release notes can be found here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>>>>>
>>>>> The binary distributions can be found here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>>>>
>>>>> The source archives can be found here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>>>>
>>>>> The Maven repository is here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/
>>>>>
>>>>> The source tag:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>>>>>
>>>>> The project website for that version has been staged to:
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Martyn
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC2)
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
The source archive and/or tag (depending on who you ask) is the
ultimate release at the end of the day. The binaries are only
conveniences, but as we do ship them are expected to be treated
similaly in terms of license/notice handling, and they often tend to
be treated as component parts of the release process as a result.
Certainly I would be surprisd to find anything in the releases area of
repository.apache.org that hadnt been voted on in some way, even
though only by proxy of the matching source artifact release.
The apache parent pom adds the tooling leading to creation of the
LICENCE and NOTICE files in the jar files. It has always been my
understanding they do need to be there, mainly a result of seeing
other projects pulled up on not having them.
http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq mentions:
Does the policy apply to binary/object files, such as executables or JAR files?
Yes. Even if there are no source files within the release, the LICENSE
file and NOTICE file are still both required within every ASF
distribution -- whether the unit of distribution is a .jar, .msi,
.tar/.?gz, .zip, .exe installer, or any other file format used for
distributions. For example, Windows .exe files must not be used as a
unit of distribution unless they are installers and include the
LICENSE and NOTICE files in their installation.
The interesting bit there would be deciding whether something (a .jar)
was not 'a unit of distribution' because it was included inside
something else that was (a tar.gz). Including the files seems
easier/safer :-)
Robbie
On 13 March 2015 at 17:09, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The apache release process covers the artifacts in apache/dist[1]
> The jars in maven are outside the process from what I understand and
> as such they do not need a LICENSE or NOTICE file.
>
> However, I see some value in putting them in there, but I also see a
> potential downside, because it may suggest that they are 'released'
> artifacts that have been voted on by a PMC, which will not be the
> case. It may be a case of maven tech adoption going ahead of explicit
> policy.
> What is an apache release may indeed, in the future, extend to what is
> in maven, and we will be ahead of the curve with the inclusion of
> these two files :-)
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#where-do-releases-go
>
> On 13 March 2015 at 16:15, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 13 March 2015 at 15:59, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13/03/15 15:16, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I downloaded the src+bin tar.gz files, and gave the src build a run
>>>> through and kicked the tyres on the binary. The NPE from RC1 when
>>>> using an AMQP client is now fixed. In the docs the links to the
>>>> configuration index now work, and the table there now links to the
>>>> .html files rather than the .md files.
>>>>
>>>> For the docs, the project-info page near the start is still 404's.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looking at some of the diff since RC1, I noticed that some JSON
>>>> related source files had their 'JSON licence' restored to them. They
>>>> should be mentioned in the distro LICENCE files as a result, either
>>>> including the license or pointing to it in the tree.
>>>
>>> Given that the activemq-core-client jar covers these source files it it's
>>> LICENSE, am I correct in assuming there is no need to add this again in the
>>> binary distribution? i.e. apache-activemq-6.0.0-bin i.e. we should only
>>> need to add this to the LICENSE file in the source distribution?
>>>>
>>
>> I think it needs to be there (anyone else know otherwise?), and I
>> would personally add it since the LICENSE file in the distribution
>> root ultimately lets people know what terms the various included bits
>> are under. The ones in the jars also need to be there because jars are
>> also distributions themselves and people can/do use them in isolation
>> (e.g from a maven repo).
>>
>>>> The
>>>> activemq-core-client jar has the ASLv2 included twice in its
>>>> META-INF/LICENCE file, likely due to the appended-resources file for
>>>> adding the licence for the JSON bits.
>>>
>>> Yes. The build appears to append the license rather than overwrite as we
>>> had thought.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There was a base64.txt licence file previously that went away; is that
>>>> code no longer included?
>>>
>>> Clebert already replied to this. But yes this is no longer included.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Robbie
>>>>
>>>> On 13 March 2015 at 14:05, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the fast turnaround.
>>>>>
>>>>> NOTICE and LICENCE files look correct in both source and binary distros.
>>>>>
>>>>> source builds, tests run, resulting binary looks great.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I found one Cat-x transitive dep that breaks the build.
>>>>> I added an exclusion and the source builds find, so the dependency is
>>>>> not required but it needs to be removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Detail:
>>>>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project activemq-rest: Could not
>>>>> resolve dependencies for project
>>>>> org.apache.activemq.rest:activemq-rest:jar:6.0.0: The repository
>>>>> system is offline but the artifact
>>>>>
>>>>> org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation:jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec:jar:1.0.1.Final
>>>>> ..
>>>>>
>>>>> Resolution:
>>>>> <dependency>
>>>>> <groupId>org.jboss.resteasy</groupId>
>>>>> <artifactId>resteasy-jaxrs</artifactId>
>>>>> <exclusions>
>>>>>
>>>>> <exclusion><groupId>org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation</groupId><artifactId>jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec</artifactId>
>>>>> </exclusion>
>>>>> </exclusions>
>>>>> </dependency>
>>>>>
>>>>> So this is another -1.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, with this issue fixed and no regressions - I am ready to +1
>>>>> this release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Shout out to other pmc members - even if you don't intend to vote, can
>>>>> you take a few moments to cast your eyes over the artifacts.
>>>>> As this is a first release, we need many eyes to validate there are no
>>>>> glaring omissions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12 March 2015 at 21:30, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've cut a second release candidate of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 addressing
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> initial RC feedback from community members.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for
>>>>>> AMQP,
>>>>>> STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The release notes can be found here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The binary distributions can be found here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The source archives can be found here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Maven repository is here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The source tag:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The project website for that version has been staged to:
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
>>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martyn
>>>
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC2)
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
The apache release process covers the artifacts in apache/dist[1]
The jars in maven are outside the process from what I understand and
as such they do not need a LICENSE or NOTICE file.
However, I see some value in putting them in there, but I also see a
potential downside, because it may suggest that they are 'released'
artifacts that have been voted on by a PMC, which will not be the
case. It may be a case of maven tech adoption going ahead of explicit
policy.
What is an apache release may indeed, in the future, extend to what is
in maven, and we will be ahead of the curve with the inclusion of
these two files :-)
[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#where-do-releases-go
On 13 March 2015 at 16:15, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 March 2015 at 15:59, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 13/03/15 15:16, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>>>
>>> I downloaded the src+bin tar.gz files, and gave the src build a run
>>> through and kicked the tyres on the binary. The NPE from RC1 when
>>> using an AMQP client is now fixed. In the docs the links to the
>>> configuration index now work, and the table there now links to the
>>> .html files rather than the .md files.
>>>
>>> For the docs, the project-info page near the start is still 404's.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking at some of the diff since RC1, I noticed that some JSON
>>> related source files had their 'JSON licence' restored to them. They
>>> should be mentioned in the distro LICENCE files as a result, either
>>> including the license or pointing to it in the tree.
>>
>> Given that the activemq-core-client jar covers these source files it it's
>> LICENSE, am I correct in assuming there is no need to add this again in the
>> binary distribution? i.e. apache-activemq-6.0.0-bin i.e. we should only
>> need to add this to the LICENSE file in the source distribution?
>>>
>
> I think it needs to be there (anyone else know otherwise?), and I
> would personally add it since the LICENSE file in the distribution
> root ultimately lets people know what terms the various included bits
> are under. The ones in the jars also need to be there because jars are
> also distributions themselves and people can/do use them in isolation
> (e.g from a maven repo).
>
>>> The
>>> activemq-core-client jar has the ASLv2 included twice in its
>>> META-INF/LICENCE file, likely due to the appended-resources file for
>>> adding the licence for the JSON bits.
>>
>> Yes. The build appears to append the license rather than overwrite as we
>> had thought.
>>>
>>>
>>> There was a base64.txt licence file previously that went away; is that
>>> code no longer included?
>>
>> Clebert already replied to this. But yes this is no longer included.
>>
>>>
>>> Robbie
>>>
>>> On 13 March 2015 at 14:05, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the fast turnaround.
>>>>
>>>> NOTICE and LICENCE files look correct in both source and binary distros.
>>>>
>>>> source builds, tests run, resulting binary looks great.
>>>>
>>>> However, I found one Cat-x transitive dep that breaks the build.
>>>> I added an exclusion and the source builds find, so the dependency is
>>>> not required but it needs to be removed.
>>>>
>>>> Detail:
>>>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project activemq-rest: Could not
>>>> resolve dependencies for project
>>>> org.apache.activemq.rest:activemq-rest:jar:6.0.0: The repository
>>>> system is offline but the artifact
>>>>
>>>> org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation:jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec:jar:1.0.1.Final
>>>> ..
>>>>
>>>> Resolution:
>>>> <dependency>
>>>> <groupId>org.jboss.resteasy</groupId>
>>>> <artifactId>resteasy-jaxrs</artifactId>
>>>> <exclusions>
>>>>
>>>> <exclusion><groupId>org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation</groupId><artifactId>jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec</artifactId>
>>>> </exclusion>
>>>> </exclusions>
>>>> </dependency>
>>>>
>>>> So this is another -1.
>>>>
>>>> However, with this issue fixed and no regressions - I am ready to +1
>>>> this release.
>>>>
>>>> Shout out to other pmc members - even if you don't intend to vote, can
>>>> you take a few moments to cast your eyes over the artifacts.
>>>> As this is a first release, we need many eyes to validate there are no
>>>> glaring omissions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12 March 2015 at 21:30, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello all.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've cut a second release candidate of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 addressing
>>>>> the
>>>>> initial RC feedback from community members.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for
>>>>> AMQP,
>>>>> STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The release notes can be found here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>>>>>
>>>>> The binary distributions can be found here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>>>>
>>>>> The source archives can be found here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>>>>
>>>>> The Maven repository is here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/
>>>>>
>>>>> The source tag:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>>>>>
>>>>> The project website for that version has been staged to:
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Martyn
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC2)
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 13 March 2015 at 15:59, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 13/03/15 15:16, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>>
>> I downloaded the src+bin tar.gz files, and gave the src build a run
>> through and kicked the tyres on the binary. The NPE from RC1 when
>> using an AMQP client is now fixed. In the docs the links to the
>> configuration index now work, and the table there now links to the
>> .html files rather than the .md files.
>>
>> For the docs, the project-info page near the start is still 404's.
>
> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Looking at some of the diff since RC1, I noticed that some JSON
>> related source files had their 'JSON licence' restored to them. They
>> should be mentioned in the distro LICENCE files as a result, either
>> including the license or pointing to it in the tree.
>
> Given that the activemq-core-client jar covers these source files it it's
> LICENSE, am I correct in assuming there is no need to add this again in the
> binary distribution? i.e. apache-activemq-6.0.0-bin i.e. we should only
> need to add this to the LICENSE file in the source distribution?
>>
I think it needs to be there (anyone else know otherwise?), and I
would personally add it since the LICENSE file in the distribution
root ultimately lets people know what terms the various included bits
are under. The ones in the jars also need to be there because jars are
also distributions themselves and people can/do use them in isolation
(e.g from a maven repo).
>> The
>> activemq-core-client jar has the ASLv2 included twice in its
>> META-INF/LICENCE file, likely due to the appended-resources file for
>> adding the licence for the JSON bits.
>
> Yes. The build appears to append the license rather than overwrite as we
> had thought.
>>
>>
>> There was a base64.txt licence file previously that went away; is that
>> code no longer included?
>
> Clebert already replied to this. But yes this is no longer included.
>
>>
>> Robbie
>>
>> On 13 March 2015 at 14:05, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the fast turnaround.
>>>
>>> NOTICE and LICENCE files look correct in both source and binary distros.
>>>
>>> source builds, tests run, resulting binary looks great.
>>>
>>> However, I found one Cat-x transitive dep that breaks the build.
>>> I added an exclusion and the source builds find, so the dependency is
>>> not required but it needs to be removed.
>>>
>>> Detail:
>>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project activemq-rest: Could not
>>> resolve dependencies for project
>>> org.apache.activemq.rest:activemq-rest:jar:6.0.0: The repository
>>> system is offline but the artifact
>>>
>>> org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation:jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec:jar:1.0.1.Final
>>> ..
>>>
>>> Resolution:
>>> <dependency>
>>> <groupId>org.jboss.resteasy</groupId>
>>> <artifactId>resteasy-jaxrs</artifactId>
>>> <exclusions>
>>>
>>> <exclusion><groupId>org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation</groupId><artifactId>jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec</artifactId>
>>> </exclusion>
>>> </exclusions>
>>> </dependency>
>>>
>>> So this is another -1.
>>>
>>> However, with this issue fixed and no regressions - I am ready to +1
>>> this release.
>>>
>>> Shout out to other pmc members - even if you don't intend to vote, can
>>> you take a few moments to cast your eyes over the artifacts.
>>> As this is a first release, we need many eyes to validate there are no
>>> glaring omissions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12 March 2015 at 21:30, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello all.
>>>>
>>>> I've cut a second release candidate of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 addressing
>>>> the
>>>> initial RC feedback from community members.
>>>>
>>>> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for
>>>> AMQP,
>>>> STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The release notes can be found here:
>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>>>>
>>>> The binary distributions can be found here:
>>>>
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>>>
>>>> The source archives can be found here:
>>>>
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>>>
>>>> The Maven repository is here:
>>>>
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/
>>>>
>>>> The source tag:
>>>>
>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>>>>
>>>> The project website for that version has been staged to:
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>>>>
>>>> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>
>>>> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Martyn
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC2)
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
On 13/03/15 15:16, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> I downloaded the src+bin tar.gz files, and gave the src build a run
> through and kicked the tyres on the binary. The NPE from RC1 when
> using an AMQP client is now fixed. In the docs the links to the
> configuration index now work, and the table there now links to the
> .html files rather than the .md files.
>
> For the docs, the project-info page near the start is still 404's.
Thanks.
>
> Looking at some of the diff since RC1, I noticed that some JSON
> related source files had their 'JSON licence' restored to them. They
> should be mentioned in the distro LICENCE files as a result, either
> including the license or pointing to it in the tree.
Given that the activemq-core-client jar covers these source files it
it's LICENSE, am I correct in assuming there is no need to add this
again in the binary distribution? i.e. apache-activemq-6.0.0-bin i.e. we
should only need to add this to the LICENSE file in the source
distribution?
> The
> activemq-core-client jar has the ASLv2 included twice in its
> META-INF/LICENCE file, likely due to the appended-resources file for
> adding the licence for the JSON bits.
Yes. The build appears to append the license rather than overwrite as
we had thought.
>
> There was a base64.txt licence file previously that went away; is that
> code no longer included?
Clebert already replied to this. But yes this is no longer included.
>
> Robbie
>
> On 13 March 2015 at 14:05, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for the fast turnaround.
>>
>> NOTICE and LICENCE files look correct in both source and binary distros.
>>
>> source builds, tests run, resulting binary looks great.
>>
>> However, I found one Cat-x transitive dep that breaks the build.
>> I added an exclusion and the source builds find, so the dependency is
>> not required but it needs to be removed.
>>
>> Detail:
>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project activemq-rest: Could not
>> resolve dependencies for project
>> org.apache.activemq.rest:activemq-rest:jar:6.0.0: The repository
>> system is offline but the artifact
>> org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation:jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec:jar:1.0.1.Final
>> ..
>>
>> Resolution:
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>org.jboss.resteasy</groupId>
>> <artifactId>resteasy-jaxrs</artifactId>
>> <exclusions>
>> <exclusion><groupId>org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation</groupId><artifactId>jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec</artifactId>
>> </exclusion>
>> </exclusions>
>> </dependency>
>>
>> So this is another -1.
>>
>> However, with this issue fixed and no regressions - I am ready to +1
>> this release.
>>
>> Shout out to other pmc members - even if you don't intend to vote, can
>> you take a few moments to cast your eyes over the artifacts.
>> As this is a first release, we need many eyes to validate there are no
>> glaring omissions.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12 March 2015 at 21:30, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Hello all.
>>>
>>> I've cut a second release candidate of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 addressing the
>>> initial RC feedback from community members.
>>>
>>> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for AMQP,
>>> STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
>>>
>>>
>>> The release notes can be found here:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>>>
>>> The binary distributions can be found here:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>>
>>> The source archives can be found here:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>>
>>> The Maven repository is here:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/
>>>
>>> The source tag:
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>>>
>>> The project website for that version has been staged to:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>>>
>>> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>
>>> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Martyn
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC2)
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
I downloaded the src+bin tar.gz files, and gave the src build a run
through and kicked the tyres on the binary. The NPE from RC1 when
using an AMQP client is now fixed. In the docs the links to the
configuration index now work, and the table there now links to the
.html files rather than the .md files.
For the docs, the project-info page near the start is still 404's.
Looking at some of the diff since RC1, I noticed that some JSON
related source files had their 'JSON licence' restored to them. They
should be mentioned in the distro LICENCE files as a result, either
including the license or pointing to it in the tree. The
activemq-core-client jar has the ASLv2 included twice in its
META-INF/LICENCE file, likely due to the appended-resources file for
adding the licence for the JSON bits.
There was a base64.txt licence file previously that went away; is that
code no longer included?
Robbie
On 13 March 2015 at 14:05, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the fast turnaround.
>
> NOTICE and LICENCE files look correct in both source and binary distros.
>
> source builds, tests run, resulting binary looks great.
>
> However, I found one Cat-x transitive dep that breaks the build.
> I added an exclusion and the source builds find, so the dependency is
> not required but it needs to be removed.
>
> Detail:
> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project activemq-rest: Could not
> resolve dependencies for project
> org.apache.activemq.rest:activemq-rest:jar:6.0.0: The repository
> system is offline but the artifact
> org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation:jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec:jar:1.0.1.Final
> ..
>
> Resolution:
> <dependency>
> <groupId>org.jboss.resteasy</groupId>
> <artifactId>resteasy-jaxrs</artifactId>
> <exclusions>
> <exclusion><groupId>org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation</groupId><artifactId>jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec</artifactId>
> </exclusion>
> </exclusions>
> </dependency>
>
> So this is another -1.
>
> However, with this issue fixed and no regressions - I am ready to +1
> this release.
>
> Shout out to other pmc members - even if you don't intend to vote, can
> you take a few moments to cast your eyes over the artifacts.
> As this is a first release, we need many eyes to validate there are no
> glaring omissions.
>
>
>
> On 12 March 2015 at 21:30, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hello all.
>>
>> I've cut a second release candidate of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 addressing the
>> initial RC feedback from community members.
>>
>> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for AMQP,
>> STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
>>
>>
>> The release notes can be found here:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>>
>> The binary distributions can be found here:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>
>> The source archives can be found here:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>
>> The Maven repository is here:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/
>>
>> The source tag:
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>>
>> The project website for that version has been staged to:
>> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>>
>> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>
>> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>
>> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Martyn
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC2)
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the fast turnaround.
NOTICE and LICENCE files look correct in both source and binary distros.
source builds, tests run, resulting binary looks great.
However, I found one Cat-x transitive dep that breaks the build.
I added an exclusion and the source builds find, so the dependency is
not required but it needs to be removed.
Detail:
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project activemq-rest: Could not
resolve dependencies for project
org.apache.activemq.rest:activemq-rest:jar:6.0.0: The repository
system is offline but the artifact
org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation:jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec:jar:1.0.1.Final
..
Resolution:
<dependency>
<groupId>org.jboss.resteasy</groupId>
<artifactId>resteasy-jaxrs</artifactId>
<exclusions>
<exclusion><groupId>org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation</groupId><artifactId>jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec</artifactId>
</exclusion>
</exclusions>
</dependency>
So this is another -1.
However, with this issue fixed and no regressions - I am ready to +1
this release.
Shout out to other pmc members - even if you don't intend to vote, can
you take a few moments to cast your eyes over the artifacts.
As this is a first release, we need many eyes to validate there are no
glaring omissions.
On 12 March 2015 at 21:30, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> I've cut a second release candidate of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 addressing the
> initial RC feedback from community members.
>
> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for AMQP,
> STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
>
>
> The release notes can be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>
> The binary distributions can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>
> The source archives can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>
> The Maven repository is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/
>
> The source tag:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>
> The project website for that version has been staged to:
> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>
> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>
> Regards
>
> Martyn
Re: [CANCEL][VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC2)
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
Even though we are canceling the vote we would appreciate feedback
from other PMCs as Gary Mentioned.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Cancelling vote. Another RC will follow addressing the Cat X issue as
> described by Gary Tully.
>
> On 12/03/15 21:30, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>
>> Hello all.
>>
>> I've cut a second release candidate of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 addressing
>> the initial RC feedback from community members.
>>
>> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for
>> AMQP, STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
>>
>>
>> The release notes can be found here:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>>
>> The binary distributions can be found here:
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>
>> The source archives can be found here:
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>
>> The Maven repository is here:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/
>>
>> The source tag:
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>>
>> The project website for that version has been staged to:
>> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>>
>> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>
>> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>
>> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Martyn
>
>
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
[CANCEL][VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC2)
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
Cancelling vote. Another RC will follow addressing the Cat X issue as
described by Gary Tully.
On 12/03/15 21:30, Martyn Taylor wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> I've cut a second release candidate of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
> addressing the initial RC feedback from community members.
>
> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for
> AMQP, STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
>
>
> The release notes can be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>
>
> The binary distributions can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>
>
> The source archives can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>
>
> The Maven repository is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/
>
>
> The source tag:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>
>
> The project website for that version has been staged to:
> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>
> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>
> Regards
>
> Martyn
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>.
Reviewed and everything looks to be in place: +1
On 03/17/2015 05:26 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> I've cut a third release candidate of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0,
> addressing the RC2 feedback from community members.
>
> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for
> AMQP, STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE.
>
> The release notes can be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>
>
> The binary distributions can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1038/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>
>
> The source archives can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1038/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>
>
> The Maven repository is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1038/
>
>
> The source tag:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>
>
> The project website for that version has been staged to:
> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>
> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>
> Regards
>
> Martyn
>
--
Tim Bish
Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
tim.bish@redhat.com | www.redhat.com
skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Clebert <cl...@gmail.com>.
This is not a failure. Send the build.log to another directory.
-- Clebert Suconic typing on the iPhone.
> On Mar 19, 2015, at 18:56, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>
> -1
>
> First off, please start a new thread for the next vote. This is getting
> confusing. (That has nothing to do with the -1).
>
> Second, I have to -1 on this vote because of a build failure while trying to
> build the project using the following command which captures the full
> output:
>
> script BUILD.log mvn clean install
>
> The error indicates the file BUILD.log is missing a license header.
>
> I look forward to the next RC!
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693505.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I agree it's an issue. I disagree it's a blocker.
as I said anyone can just switch the directory to any other folder for
the log output.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:32 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> There is a bigger concern here. Apache project releases are source code
> releases. The intent is for folks to be able to work in these directories.
>
> Failing the build on license checks on non-build files is going to be a
> concern. It just doesn't make sense - and it should be easy to fix.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693508.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by "Jamie G." <ja...@gmail.com>.
activemq.nest? It's the home for the next generation...
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought about activemq.next but some people think the name stinks...
>
> if you don't want 6 or .next i will need help because I'm out of names
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>> Well I think you still run into the same confusion if you call it
>> ActiveMQ 6. Why not give it a code name like activemq-<codename>
>> until it's ready to take over as ActiveMQ 6. I do agree with starting
>> at 1.0.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Clebert Suconic
>> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ok, I can see how using the same coordinates could cause some confusion,
>>>
>>> What about using org.apache.activemq-6, with version starting at ="1.0"
>>>
>>> what do you think?'
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> That is very true. -1 as well.
>>>> Hadrian
>>>>
>>>> On 03/19/2015 08:57 PM, artnaseef wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I will continue to look at this as I can find time.
>>>>>
>>>>> One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq- for
>>>>> the
>>>>> prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the
>>>>> followin:
>>>>>
>>>>> * activemq-ra
>>>>> * activemq-web
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with the
>>>>> activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users. And, I'm
>>>>> especially
>>>>> concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name will be
>>>>> in
>>>>> maven central.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop
>>>>> maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of
>>>>> confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693512.html
>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hiram Chirino
>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I thought about activemq.next but some people think the name stinks...
if you don't want 6 or .next i will need help because I'm out of names
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> Well I think you still run into the same confusion if you call it
> ActiveMQ 6. Why not give it a code name like activemq-<codename>
> until it's ready to take over as ActiveMQ 6. I do agree with starting
> at 1.0.
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ok, I can see how using the same coordinates could cause some confusion,
>>
>> What about using org.apache.activemq-6, with version starting at ="1.0"
>>
>> what do you think?'
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> That is very true. -1 as well.
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>> On 03/19/2015 08:57 PM, artnaseef wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I will continue to look at this as I can find time.
>>>>
>>>> One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq- for
>>>> the
>>>> prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the
>>>> followin:
>>>>
>>>> * activemq-ra
>>>> * activemq-web
>>>>
>>>> I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with the
>>>> activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users. And, I'm
>>>> especially
>>>> concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name will be
>>>> in
>>>> maven central.
>>>>
>>>> Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop
>>>> maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of
>>>> confusion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693512.html
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> --
> Hiram Chirino
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
Well I think you still run into the same confusion if you call it
ActiveMQ 6. Why not give it a code name like activemq-<codename>
until it's ready to take over as ActiveMQ 6. I do agree with starting
at 1.0.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, I can see how using the same coordinates could cause some confusion,
>
> What about using org.apache.activemq-6, with version starting at ="1.0"
>
> what do you think?'
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That is very true. -1 as well.
>> Hadrian
>>
>> On 03/19/2015 08:57 PM, artnaseef wrote:
>>>
>>> I will continue to look at this as I can find time.
>>>
>>> One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq- for
>>> the
>>> prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the
>>> followin:
>>>
>>> * activemq-ra
>>> * activemq-web
>>>
>>> I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with the
>>> activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users. And, I'm
>>> especially
>>> concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name will be
>>> in
>>> maven central.
>>>
>>> Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop
>>> maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of
>>> confusion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693512.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
Ok, I can see how using the same coordinates could cause some confusion,
What about using org.apache.activemq-6, with version starting at ="1.0"
what do you think?'
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That is very true. -1 as well.
> Hadrian
>
> On 03/19/2015 08:57 PM, artnaseef wrote:
>>
>> I will continue to look at this as I can find time.
>>
>> One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq- for
>> the
>> prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the
>> followin:
>>
>> * activemq-ra
>> * activemq-web
>>
>> I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with the
>> activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users. And, I'm
>> especially
>> concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name will be
>> in
>> maven central.
>>
>> Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop
>> maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of
>> confusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693512.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
[Cancel][VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
Cancelling vote based on 2x -1.
On 20/03/15 01:23, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
> That is very true. -1 as well.
> Hadrian
>
> On 03/19/2015 08:57 PM, artnaseef wrote:
>> I will continue to look at this as I can find time.
>>
>> One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq-
>> for the
>> prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the
>> followin:
>>
>> * activemq-ra
>> * activemq-web
>>
>> I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with
>> the
>> activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users. And, I'm
>> especially
>> concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name
>> will be in
>> maven central.
>>
>> Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop
>> maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of
>> confusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693512.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
That is very true. -1 as well.
Hadrian
On 03/19/2015 08:57 PM, artnaseef wrote:
> I will continue to look at this as I can find time.
>
> One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq- for the
> prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the
> followin:
>
> * activemq-ra
> * activemq-web
>
> I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with the
> activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users. And, I'm especially
> concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name will be in
> maven central.
>
> Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop
> maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of
> confusion.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693512.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
+1 on that.. this is my preference.
We didn't name it M1 because I didn't know it was possible within
apache naming conventions.
With our current planning we would release something in 3 months that
would include JDBC support + OSGI and other things.. I don't think we
are years away from completing a full path. we are talking about
months here.
So keep things with M1, M2.. until we are ready for a full replacement
would be a great option
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> How is this any different than say CXF 2.7.x to CXF 3.0.x? Both versions use the same maven coordinates. Or Karaf 2.x -> 3.x -> 4.x?
>
> My opinion is that if this is intended to eventually be a “6.0” of ActiveMQ, then lets keep going that direction. That said, if it’s not ready to be a full replacement, then give it a slightly different naming, like “6.0.0-M1” for milestone 1 or similar. I guess that would be my preference. Until we have all the migration issues hammered out and and feature replacements in place, (and OSGi support) I’m kind uncomfortable calling it 6.0. However, a "release milestone” along that path is still a good idea to get people working on it.
>
> Dan
>
>
>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 8:57 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>
>> I will continue to look at this as I can find time.
>>
>> One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq- for the
>> prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the
>> followin:
>>
>> * activemq-ra
>> * activemq-web
>>
>> I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with the
>> activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users. And, I'm especially
>> concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name will be in
>> maven central.
>>
>> Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop
>> maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of
>> confusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693512.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
Great idea. Seem simpler too. +1 for adding -M1
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> How is this any different than say CXF 2.7.x to CXF 3.0.x? Both versions use the same maven coordinates. Or Karaf 2.x -> 3.x -> 4.x?
>
> My opinion is that if this is intended to eventually be a “6.0” of ActiveMQ, then lets keep going that direction. That said, if it’s not ready to be a full replacement, then give it a slightly different naming, like “6.0.0-M1” for milestone 1 or similar. I guess that would be my preference. Until we have all the migration issues hammered out and and feature replacements in place, (and OSGi support) I’m kind uncomfortable calling it 6.0. However, a "release milestone” along that path is still a good idea to get people working on it.
>
> Dan
>
>
>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 8:57 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>
>> I will continue to look at this as I can find time.
>>
>> One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq- for the
>> prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the
>> followin:
>>
>> * activemq-ra
>> * activemq-web
>>
>> I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with the
>> activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users. And, I'm especially
>> concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name will be in
>> maven central.
>>
>> Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop
>> maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of
>> confusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693512.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
It will all be driven here through the community.
There's a JIRA list https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACTIVEMQ6
This first milestone was is clearing up components, release, and make
it ready to apache.
After we get this first milestone out, I'm hoping to get more people
involved. It's the beauty of open source.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Weiqi Gao <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In that case, is it still very important for ActiveMQ 6.0.0 to have "all the
> migration issues hammered out and and feature replacements in place"?
>
> --
> Weiqi Gao
>
> On 3/20/2015 10:48 AM, Dejan Bosanac wrote:
>>
>> Even after 6.0 is released (using any of these development paths), 5.x and
>> 6.x will continue to coexists for a long while as many folks wouldn’t want
>> to move for one reason or another. And that’s normal thing in this kind of
>> projects. For example take a look at Tomcat, where at this moment you can
>> download 6.x, 7.x and 8.x (and 9.x is coming), all active. The main thing
>> to do is to document all this properly, so users can make informed
>> decisions on what they want/need.
>>
>> Regards
>> --
>> Dejan Bosanac
>> ----------------------
>> Red Hat, Inc.
>> dbosanac@redhat.com
>> Twitter: @dejanb
>> Blog: http://sensatic.net
>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/20/2015 11:17 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>>
>>>> How is this any different than say CXF 2.7.x to CXF 3.0.x? Both
>>>> versions use the same maven coordinates. Or Karaf 2.x -> 3.x -> 4.x?
>>>>
>>> +1 was wondering the same thing
>>>
>>> My opinion is that if this is intended to eventually be a “6.0” of
>>>>
>>>> ActiveMQ, then lets keep going that direction. That said, if it’s not
>>>> ready to be a full replacement, then give it a slightly different
>>>> naming,
>>>> like “6.0.0-M1” for milestone 1 or similar. I guess that would be my
>>>> preference. Until we have all the migration issues hammered out and
>>>> and
>>>> feature replacements in place, (and OSGi support) I’m kind
>>>> uncomfortable
>>>> calling it 6.0. However, a "release milestone” along that path is
>>>> still a
>>>> good idea to get people working on it.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>> +1 milestone releases would seem to make it clear where it's going
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 8:57 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I will continue to look at this as I can find time.
>>>>>
>>>>> One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq-
>>>>> for
>>>>> the
>>>>> prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the
>>>>> followin:
>>>>>
>>>>> * activemq-ra
>>>>> * activemq-web
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with
>>>>> the
>>>>> activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users. And, I'm
>>>>> especially
>>>>> concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name will
>>>>> be in
>>>>> maven central.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop
>>>>> maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of
>>>>> confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>>>> nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693512.html
>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tim Bish
>>> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
>>> tim.bish@redhat.com | www.redhat.com
>>> skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
>>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Weiqi Gao <we...@gmail.com>.
In that case, is it still very important for ActiveMQ 6.0.0 to have "all
the migration issues hammered out and and feature replacements in place"?
--
Weiqi Gao
On 3/20/2015 10:48 AM, Dejan Bosanac wrote:
> Even after 6.0 is released (using any of these development paths), 5.x and
> 6.x will continue to coexists for a long while as many folks wouldn’t want
> to move for one reason or another. And that’s normal thing in this kind of
> projects. For example take a look at Tomcat, where at this moment you can
> download 6.x, 7.x and 8.x (and 9.x is coming), all active. The main thing
> to do is to document all this properly, so users can make informed
> decisions on what they want/need.
>
> Regards
> --
> Dejan Bosanac
> ----------------------
> Red Hat, Inc.
> dbosanac@redhat.com
> Twitter: @dejanb
> Blog: http://sensatic.net
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03/20/2015 11:17 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>
>>> How is this any different than say CXF 2.7.x to CXF 3.0.x? Both
>>> versions use the same maven coordinates. Or Karaf 2.x -> 3.x -> 4.x?
>>>
>> +1 was wondering the same thing
>>
>> My opinion is that if this is intended to eventually be a “6.0” of
>>> ActiveMQ, then lets keep going that direction. That said, if it’s not
>>> ready to be a full replacement, then give it a slightly different naming,
>>> like “6.0.0-M1” for milestone 1 or similar. I guess that would be my
>>> preference. Until we have all the migration issues hammered out and and
>>> feature replacements in place, (and OSGi support) I’m kind uncomfortable
>>> calling it 6.0. However, a "release milestone” along that path is still a
>>> good idea to get people working on it.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>> +1 milestone releases would seem to make it clear where it's going
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 8:57 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I will continue to look at this as I can find time.
>>>>
>>>> One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq- for
>>>> the
>>>> prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the
>>>> followin:
>>>>
>>>> * activemq-ra
>>>> * activemq-web
>>>>
>>>> I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with the
>>>> activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users. And, I'm
>>>> especially
>>>> concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name will
>>>> be in
>>>> maven central.
>>>>
>>>> Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop
>>>> maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of
>>>> confusion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>>> nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693512.html
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Tim Bish
>> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
>> tim.bish@redhat.com | www.redhat.com
>> skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net>.
Even after 6.0 is released (using any of these development paths), 5.x and
6.x will continue to coexists for a long while as many folks wouldn’t want
to move for one reason or another. And that’s normal thing in this kind of
projects. For example take a look at Tomcat, where at this moment you can
download 6.x, 7.x and 8.x (and 9.x is coming), all active. The main thing
to do is to document all this properly, so users can make informed
decisions on what they want/need.
Regards
--
Dejan Bosanac
----------------------
Red Hat, Inc.
dbosanac@redhat.com
Twitter: @dejanb
Blog: http://sensatic.net
ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/20/2015 11:17 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>> How is this any different than say CXF 2.7.x to CXF 3.0.x? Both
>> versions use the same maven coordinates. Or Karaf 2.x -> 3.x -> 4.x?
>>
> +1 was wondering the same thing
>
> My opinion is that if this is intended to eventually be a “6.0” of
>> ActiveMQ, then lets keep going that direction. That said, if it’s not
>> ready to be a full replacement, then give it a slightly different naming,
>> like “6.0.0-M1” for milestone 1 or similar. I guess that would be my
>> preference. Until we have all the migration issues hammered out and and
>> feature replacements in place, (and OSGi support) I’m kind uncomfortable
>> calling it 6.0. However, a "release milestone” along that path is still a
>> good idea to get people working on it.
>>
>> Dan
>>
> +1 milestone releases would seem to make it clear where it's going
>
>
>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 8:57 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I will continue to look at this as I can find time.
>>>
>>> One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq- for
>>> the
>>> prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the
>>> followin:
>>>
>>> * activemq-ra
>>> * activemq-web
>>>
>>> I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with the
>>> activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users. And, I'm
>>> especially
>>> concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name will
>>> be in
>>> maven central.
>>>
>>> Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop
>>> maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of
>>> confusion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>> nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693512.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Tim Bish
> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
> tim.bish@redhat.com | www.redhat.com
> skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I don't think that's an issue. We will provide a clear path for users
from 5 to 6 before we move to final.
We already added OpenWire, Auto-creation of destinations and other
things that would operate similar to 5. and we have more work to do,
which we can get there if we work together.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:19 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> A complete rewrite means users need to carefully look at what's there and
> what's not, and those of us building the software need to put in extra
> effort to even figure that out ourselves. It also means starting over on
> learning the software (how to install, configure, deploy, operate, monitor,
> alert, etc).
>
> A major version bump on projects may involve refactoring and reworking
> significant parts of the code, and when it does, it's clear to the
> developers what has been changed and lost from the prior release. Then it's
> easy to document. (Like this: http://tomcat.apache.org/migration-8.html).
>
> If we had a list of all ActiveMQ features, and the state of those features
> in HornetQ (e.g. implemented, partially implemented, won't implement, etc),
> that would certainly go a long way to furthering the entire discussion.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693553.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>.
I already have it on my todo list to come up with a feature matrix (in
fact i have already started) which i will stick on the wiki (or where
ever is appropriate) which will be part of a migration document.
Once i do that I will engage the community on the forums and raise some
Jiras. Any other ideas of how to engage the community are most welcome.
regarding the website, it has the same look and feel as the Apollo site
and will be linked from the main activemq page. regarding google
searches im not sure how this could be best solved, again ideas welcome.
Andy Taylor
On 23/03/15 18:04, artnaseef wrote:
> I see - that makes sense. It definitely would help to have an enumeration of
> features and functions and their planned state so we know what the end-goal
> looks like for reaching the "official" 6.0.0 state. However, I can see
> working with the community on a feature-by-feature basis instead, if we can
> get the community to help us down that path.
>
> Any thoughts on how we engage the community to help draw out the needs from
> ActiveMQ 5.x that are lacking in ActiveMQ 6.0.0-M#?
>
> Also, how about web pages? Will there be a clear indication of web pages
> for the new software so they can easily be distinguished from old pages
> (thinking about google searches, for example)?
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693628.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
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.
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
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.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>.
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 <hz...@gmail.com> 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 <an...@gmail.com> 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 <ar...@artnaseef.com> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
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 <hz...@gmail.com> 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 <hz...@gmail.com> 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 <an...@gmail.com> 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 <ar...@artnaseef.com>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
HornetQ taking over for ActiveMQ is a possibility whether it shares the name
of not, and nobody is arguing that it should not try. In fact, I hope I
have made it clear that I am rooting for it to continue on and take the
challenge.
The question remains - why does it have to use the ActiveMQ name to do so?
And, again, what is the benefit to the ActiveMQ community? "A newer, better
ActiveMQ" is a vague argument - where are the details to show this?
As the carries of the mantle of ActiveMQ, we need to be thorough on a
product of such importance to the community. Being able to run one metric
that shows it is faster under some set of conditions is not adequate. I
could easily write a few lines of code that "pass messages" and outperforms
ActiveMQ and HornetQ. How would it perform with a JMS interface in front of
it, transactions, persistence, etc? That would be a totally different
matter altogether. Likewise, as HornetQ adds functionality and complexity,
how will it continue to perform, and will it really be better than ActiveMQ?
That remains unclear.
Also, I don't appreciate the "old and crufty" argument. There is definitely
room for improvement in the ActiveMQ code base - so let's make it better.
Where are the folks who make these statements working to make it better?
And, of course, anyone who feels ActiveMQ is old-and-crufty is free to leave
and work on something else. Please don't turn into a force that only
attacks ActiveMQ and harps on negatives; those actions do not move ActiveMQ
forward.
ActiveMQ is a world-class solution that is doing the job for many, many
companies and governments at very large scales. That will continue for the
foreseeable future.
Last year, "old and crufty" was the argument for HawtIO to replace the
built-in web console. After HawtIO was removed from ActiveMQ, how many of
the folks that said the console was in need of repair took up further action
to improve it? I took up such action, and so did a handful of others, but I
don't recall seeing anyone pushing HawtIO doing the same. So please look at
your own actions before accusing others of only hindering progress.
Again, HornetQ should continue on. And perhaps one day it will replace
ActiveMQ. But, if we cannot clearly define a benefit to the ActiveMQ
community to declaring today that HornetQ is activemq-6, then let's stop
this waste of effort and move it where it belongs - as its own project.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693767.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
David,
It seems to me that the message does not come across as intended. I
don't see why releasing hornet as activemq-hornet as opposed to
activemq-6.x would doom activemq. I totally get your point and agree
with it, except the part where "amq is gonna die".
Nobody scared apollo, nobody is scaring hornet. As an incubating project
it needs to build a community.
Hadrian
On 03/24/2015 04:21 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> To me it means that the existing amq community doesn't want to enter the modern world and would rather hornetQ hadn't come here. Sorry to be blunt, but it seems to me that there's a lot more effort being expended on objecting to the hornetQ donation and trying to get the new committers to just go away than to integrating the code bases.
>
> Thanks Hiram for making it a bit more explicit why amq is gonna die without a new broker from somewhere. Frankly I can't believe your good fortune here. If you scare away hornetQ I don't think anyone's about to give you another broker and I don't see anyone here writing a new one after apollo.
>
> I'll try to shut up now.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Mar 24, 2015, at 3:51 PM, "Jamie G." <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As a follow up question, is there a good reason to not have HornetQ in the name?
>>
>> It clearly lets users know its different, will help them when
>> searching for historical solutions to setup/configs.
>>
>> -J
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think in part the answer was given above -- " I dont see this as any
>>> different from what 'ActiveMQ Apollo' tried to achieve."
>>>
>>> Apollo was a different broker Impl, indicating it via the naming.
>>> Perhaps "ActiveMQ HornetQ" would be enough to make the difference
>>> clear, and let end users make informed choices down the road.
>>> Presenting as AMQ6 as is takes the choice away be virtue of how its
>>> marketed.
>>>
>>> -J
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:51 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>>> I understand how this benefits HornetQ. And again, I am personally hoping
>>>> HornetQ does well.
>>>>
>>>> The question remains - what is the benefit to the ActiveMQ community?
>>>>
>>>> "It's a new broker" isn't a strong argument to me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693750.html
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
To me it means that the existing amq community doesn't want to enter the modern world and would rather hornetQ hadn't come here. Sorry to be blunt, but it seems to me that there's a lot more effort being expended on objecting to the hornetQ donation and trying to get the new committers to just go away than to integrating the code bases.
Thanks Hiram for making it a bit more explicit why amq is gonna die without a new broker from somewhere. Frankly I can't believe your good fortune here. If you scare away hornetQ I don't think anyone's about to give you another broker and I don't see anyone here writing a new one after apollo.
I'll try to shut up now.
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 24, 2015, at 3:51 PM, "Jamie G." <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As a follow up question, is there a good reason to not have HornetQ in the name?
>
> It clearly lets users know its different, will help them when
> searching for historical solutions to setup/configs.
>
> -J
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think in part the answer was given above -- " I dont see this as any
>> different from what 'ActiveMQ Apollo' tried to achieve."
>>
>> Apollo was a different broker Impl, indicating it via the naming.
>> Perhaps "ActiveMQ HornetQ" would be enough to make the difference
>> clear, and let end users make informed choices down the road.
>> Presenting as AMQ6 as is takes the choice away be virtue of how its
>> marketed.
>>
>> -J
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:51 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>> I understand how this benefits HornetQ. And again, I am personally hoping
>>> HornetQ does well.
>>>
>>> The question remains - what is the benefit to the ActiveMQ community?
>>>
>>> "It's a new broker" isn't a strong argument to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693750.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by "Jamie G." <ja...@gmail.com>.
As a follow up question, is there a good reason to not have HornetQ in the name?
It clearly lets users know its different, will help them when
searching for historical solutions to setup/configs.
-J
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think in part the answer was given above -- " I dont see this as any
> different from what 'ActiveMQ Apollo' tried to achieve."
>
> Apollo was a different broker Impl, indicating it via the naming.
> Perhaps "ActiveMQ HornetQ" would be enough to make the difference
> clear, and let end users make informed choices down the road.
> Presenting as AMQ6 as is takes the choice away be virtue of how its
> marketed.
>
> -J
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:51 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>> I understand how this benefits HornetQ. And again, I am personally hoping
>> HornetQ does well.
>>
>> The question remains - what is the benefit to the ActiveMQ community?
>>
>> "It's a new broker" isn't a strong argument to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693750.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by "Jamie G." <ja...@gmail.com>.
I think in part the answer was given above -- " I dont see this as any
different from what 'ActiveMQ Apollo' tried to achieve."
Apollo was a different broker Impl, indicating it via the naming.
Perhaps "ActiveMQ HornetQ" would be enough to make the difference
clear, and let end users make informed choices down the road.
Presenting as AMQ6 as is takes the choice away be virtue of how its
marketed.
-J
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:51 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> I understand how this benefits HornetQ. And again, I am personally hoping
> HornetQ does well.
>
> The question remains - what is the benefit to the ActiveMQ community?
>
> "It's a new broker" isn't a strong argument to me.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693750.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Hiram, I believe you, but this has nothing to do with the ability of
building a community and hence a sustainable project.
Apollo 3 years ago (more?) was probably a technically superior option.
It has nothing to do with resistance to change. A business running
ActiveMQ in production has totally different concerns than a vendor who
focuses on features and the coolness factor of the new technology.
Thinking more about it (and I should have done that earlier, my bad),
having a sub-project, which is what hornet is, having the name of the
future version of the main project, effectively undermines the option of
the main project to migrate to a newer version.
That would be ok, if the community decides to build/refactor the next
generation as a subproject, but when a completely new codebase comes
from the outside, it's very bad.
I really want to see people here talking about the community not the
technical merits. That's the issue we need to sort out now.
Hadrian
On 03/24/2015 04:10 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> Look, I'm they guy who wrote most of ActiveMQ Apollo. I would not
> have taken on such a task if there was not a good reason. I also
> would not be welcoming the hornetq project if I did not feel it was
> better path forward than Apollo. Please feel free to run the SPEC JMS
> benchmark against HornetQ and ActiveMQ if you want some metrics.
>
> Seems you don't believe in that there is a technical market out there
> that this project is competing in. Trust me there is, and it's not
> all roses for ActiveMQ right now. ActiveMQ is only as popular as it
> is because of how long it's been around and because of the
> relationships it it's built with other projects like OpenEJB,
> MCollective etc.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:47 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>> That's all marketing. Are there metrics to back it up?
>>
>> Last I understood, there is a very strong community using ActiveMQ.
>>
>> Old isn't much of an argument. For example, it was built before NIO, and
>> yet it now supports NIO.
>>
>> Are there more specifics? Feedback on which no action can be taken is
>> purely criticism, and I don't appreciate ActiveMQ being called a dinasour.
>> Java, C, C++, Javascript, and others have been around even longer than
>> ActiveMQ - will you deprecate them all?
>>
>> If there are critical issues behind ActiveMQ, let's get them out in the
>> open. This is reminding me of the HawtIO discussion from last year - a lot
>> of emotion behind it, but ultimately not much strength of reasoning.
>>
>> Let me turn this around. If we can't clearly enumerate the benefit to the
>> ActiveMQ community (which is a deal-breaker for me), then why not start
>> HornetQ as its own Apache project? Where is the downside?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693757.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
Look, I'm they guy who wrote most of ActiveMQ Apollo. I would not
have taken on such a task if there was not a good reason. I also
would not be welcoming the hornetq project if I did not feel it was
better path forward than Apollo. Please feel free to run the SPEC JMS
benchmark against HornetQ and ActiveMQ if you want some metrics.
Seems you don't believe in that there is a technical market out there
that this project is competing in. Trust me there is, and it's not
all roses for ActiveMQ right now. ActiveMQ is only as popular as it
is because of how long it's been around and because of the
relationships it it's built with other projects like OpenEJB,
MCollective etc.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:47 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> That's all marketing. Are there metrics to back it up?
>
> Last I understood, there is a very strong community using ActiveMQ.
>
> Old isn't much of an argument. For example, it was built before NIO, and
> yet it now supports NIO.
>
> Are there more specifics? Feedback on which no action can be taken is
> purely criticism, and I don't appreciate ActiveMQ being called a dinasour.
> Java, C, C++, Javascript, and others have been around even longer than
> ActiveMQ - will you deprecate them all?
>
> If there are critical issues behind ActiveMQ, let's get them out in the
> open. This is reminding me of the HawtIO discussion from last year - a lot
> of emotion behind it, but ultimately not much strength of reasoning.
>
> Let me turn this around. If we can't clearly enumerate the benefit to the
> ActiveMQ community (which is a deal-breaker for me), then why not start
> HornetQ as its own Apache project? Where is the downside?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693757.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
That's all marketing. Are there metrics to back it up?
Last I understood, there is a very strong community using ActiveMQ.
Old isn't much of an argument. For example, it was built before NIO, and
yet it now supports NIO.
Are there more specifics? Feedback on which no action can be taken is
purely criticism, and I don't appreciate ActiveMQ being called a dinasour.
Java, C, C++, Javascript, and others have been around even longer than
ActiveMQ - will you deprecate them all?
If there are critical issues behind ActiveMQ, let's get them out in the
open. This is reminding me of the HawtIO discussion from last year - a lot
of emotion behind it, but ultimately not much strength of reasoning.
Let me turn this around. If we can't clearly enumerate the benefit to the
ActiveMQ community (which is a deal-breaker for me), then why not start
HornetQ as its own Apache project? Where is the downside?
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693757.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
It's a solution to the simple problem of having the ActiveMQ brand
remain competitive.
The architecture of ActiveMQ 5.x was created before even NIO existed.
So it has some serious competitive drawbacks. As other less popular
open source messaging system become more well known which HAVE been
developed to take better advantage of modern commodity hardware,
ActiveMQ starts to look like a dinosaur by comparison. ActiveMQ could
do so much better in terms of performance and stability.
So if you do love ActiveMQ and what this project represents (a ASF
developed cross platform, cross protocol, and transactional messaging
broker), then having a future version which can continue to compete
with newer messaging systems is kinda of a no-brainer.
It's understandable that folks are resistant to change. But change is
needed or else end users will eventually consider this project
irrelevant.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:21 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> I understand how this benefits HornetQ. And again, I am personally hoping
> HornetQ does well.
>
> The question remains - what is the benefit to the ActiveMQ community?
>
> "It's a new broker" isn't a strong argument to me.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693750.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
I understand how this benefits HornetQ. And again, I am personally hoping
HornetQ does well.
The question remains - what is the benefit to the ActiveMQ community?
"It's a new broker" isn't a strong argument to me.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693750.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
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.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693747.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Would version 10 allow you to pause and be happy with 5.x for the next
> few years, till 10.x gets a chance to bed in?
>
A higher number isn't the answer. HQ needs to go to the incubator.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
On 28 March 2015 at 19:02, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> Hey Gary - in all the discussion, I missed this response, so forgive my slow
> response.
ditto :-)
>
> First, let me apologize for my use of the word "take" - it sounds it was
> read as an attack or accusation, and that was not my intent.
Accepted.
>I simply meant, "why is it important that HornetQ be called AMQ-6?"
>
> On the point that AMQ needs a v6, can you tell me why that itself is
> important? Please be specific - I have seen many comments made that really
> are just restatements of the line that ActiveMQ needs a new broker, but no
> real detail to discuss behind that.
>
I can cite a few examples but the full story is in jira:
1) durable subs should be modelled as queues. They are not in 5.x. Dealing
with slow durable consumers and large backlogs has had loads of issues in
the past[1] and still has issues like across networks.
2) Cursors introduce a cache synchronisation problem.
I think that is mostly resolved but it permeates most of the core
dispatch logic and store interface.
It is more complex and error prone than necessary imho [2]. Cursors
model consumers but I think there is a better way. HQ models producers
in paging. Apollo collapses the index, both benefit from a single core
queue abstraction.
3) Priority support - should be modeled as multiple queues.
the cursors and stores and dispatch logic collude to do priority
support in 5.x - it has been error prone [3]
4) scalability; threading model, zero copy dispatch, locking and
contention. I won't site specjms again, but I burned a lot of cycles
to try and get the best numbers for the folks that ran those tests.
The results are good, but we were blown out of the water by a better
architecture. It is not a mickey-mouse test btw.
> When I look at those statements, I have
> to balance them with my belief of ActiveMQ's popularity, market penetration,
> and ongoing efforts to add ActiveMQ into companies.
>
Exactly. What a existing user wants most from a messaging solution is
stability. While each of the points above are fixable, they are all
high risk and taken together they are a huge body of work. As a result
of evolution there is much complexity; it always surprises me the
degree to which one or two of the 4k tests fail with some seemingly
unrelated change. The 4k tests are one of the most valuable parts of
activemq. They embody hundred of use cases. Keeping them all working
and doing major surgery is getting more difficult all the time.
> Also, have you considered the possibility that naming Apollo "AMQ-6" has
> contributed apparent lack of innovation?
>
I agree. I think the 6.x moniker is a problem. I am in favour of using
a 10.0.0.M1 name for the code donation.
It puts clear daylight between it and 5.x, leaving 5.x room to evolve.
But more importantly imho, it gives activemq clear direction. I think
the user community will eventually tell us if v10 can take over the
5.x mantle.
> In other words, isn't it a concern that it will be hard to encourage innovation on the current product,
> ActiveMQ 5.x, as long as there's a promise of a very different ActiveMQ 6.x?
>
I think the innovation that is possible in 5.x is limited by
a) its architecture and evolution.
b) the need for stability, the large user base and numerous use cases.
There is plenty of room to improve however. I expect that to continue.
> I know that even causes me to pause.
>
Would version 10 allow you to pause and be happy with 5.x for the next
few years, till 10.x gets a chance to bed in?
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20text%20~%20%22Durable%22
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22cursor%22
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22priority%22
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
Hey Gary - in all the discussion, I missed this response, so forgive my slow
response.
First, let me apologize for my use of the word "take" - it sounds it was
read as an attack or accusation, and that was not my intent. I simply
meant, "why is it important that HornetQ be called AMQ-6?"
On the point that AMQ needs a v6, can you tell me why that itself is
important? Please be specific - I have seen many comments made that really
are just restatements of the line that ActiveMQ needs a new broker, but no
real detail to discuss behind that. When I look at those statements, I have
to balance them with my belief of ActiveMQ's popularity, market penetration,
and ongoing efforts to add ActiveMQ into companies.
Also, have you considered the possibility that naming Apollo "AMQ-6" has
contributed apparent lack of innovation? In other words, isn't it a concern
that it will be hard to encourage innovation on the current product,
ActiveMQ 5.x, as long as there's a promise of a very different ActiveMQ 6.x?
I know that even causes me to pause.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4694026.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Daniel Guggi <da...@gmail.com>.
the links in the first post are dead - can we get "RC3" binaries from
somewhere?
can't wait to play around with it.
hope you guys find a conclusion soon and (all) commit on the next
generation of amq :)
ty
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 March 2015 at 17:46, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> > Do you seriously think that would be wise?
> >
> > Now it sounds like your advocating that we *could* have two separate
> brokers
> > maintained, but just using the same exact name by skipping around major
> > version numbers. I certainly will not back *that* plan.
> >
> > Honestly, this response confuses me. I thought your primary argument is
> > that ActiveMQ needs a refresh. Arguing that there's a way to continue
> the
> > ActiveMQ line in this way is just ... baffling.
> >
> you are missing the point. I am not advocating that, I am just saying
> it is a possibility.
>
> A 5.x broker and a 6.x (or next generation) activemq broker will be
> very different and they will co exist for as long as they need to.
> 5.x won't run out of version numbers any time soon.
>
>
> > Why is it important to you for HornetQ to take the ActiveMQ-6 name?
> >
> It is important to me that an official ActiveMQ 6.x (or next
> generation activemq) gets off the ground and is successful.
> Using the code donation as a starting point is our best bet in that
> regard and hence I think it makes sense to release it as 6.0.0.M1
> I see it as the code donation making the ActiveMQ 6.x name. It is a
> code *grant* that we accepted, no strings attached. It is not *taking*
> anything.
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
On 26 March 2015 at 17:46, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> Do you seriously think that would be wise?
>
> Now it sounds like your advocating that we *could* have two separate brokers
> maintained, but just using the same exact name by skipping around major
> version numbers. I certainly will not back *that* plan.
>
> Honestly, this response confuses me. I thought your primary argument is
> that ActiveMQ needs a refresh. Arguing that there's a way to continue the
> ActiveMQ line in this way is just ... baffling.
>
you are missing the point. I am not advocating that, I am just saying
it is a possibility.
A 5.x broker and a 6.x (or next generation) activemq broker will be
very different and they will co exist for as long as they need to.
5.x won't run out of version numbers any time soon.
> Why is it important to you for HornetQ to take the ActiveMQ-6 name?
>
It is important to me that an official ActiveMQ 6.x (or next
generation activemq) gets off the ground and is successful.
Using the code donation as a starting point is our best bet in that
regard and hence I think it makes sense to release it as 6.0.0.M1
I see it as the code donation making the ActiveMQ 6.x name. It is a
code *grant* that we accepted, no strings attached. It is not *taking*
anything.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
Do you seriously think that would be wise?
Now it sounds like your advocating that we *could* have two separate brokers
maintained, but just using the same exact name by skipping around major
version numbers. I certainly will not back *that* plan.
Honestly, this response confuses me. I thought your primary argument is
that ActiveMQ needs a refresh. Arguing that there's a way to continue the
ActiveMQ line in this way is just ... baffling.
Why is it important to you for HornetQ to take the ActiveMQ-6 name?
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693865.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
Art,
what would stop the current trunk jumping from 5.x to 7.x and skipping
6, if the need arose?
On 24 March 2015 at 20:40, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> Preventing the existing ActiveMQ code base from moving from the 5.x to a 6.x
> version is a bad thing.
>
> We already have violated the rules of semantic versioning because of this
> (e.g. the renaming of all MBeans that was not backward-compatible).
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693768.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
Agreed.
Preventing the existing ActiveMQ code base from moving from the 5.x to a 6.x
version is a bad thing.
We already have violated the rules of semantic versioning because of this
(e.g. the renaming of all MBeans that was not backward-compatible).
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693768.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
That's fine. My concerns, again, have nothing to do with the technical
merits. So again, how about changing the name to something more
appropriate (at least imho) and help the guys grow a community?
This would actually give the activemq project the option to upgrade to a
major version, if anybody wishes that. Hornet as a subproject could make
the case that it's the better alternative, at least for some class of
problems. Everything would be simple and clear and time will tell.
How does that sound?
Hadrian
On 03/24/2015 04:16 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> I was just speaking to the WHY such a drastic change is needed. Not
> the, 'will it succeed' :)
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But Apollo didn't succeed, did it? And it was advertised the same way as
>> activemq6 and the future of activemq.
>>
>> Now it seems that you are convinced that where Apollo failed to attract a
>> community HornetQ will succeed. And bare in mind that I am not talking at
>> all about technical merits. Apollo has its brilliant lines of code and so
>> does HornetQ, I am sure.
>>
>> After all that's been said, my opinion and advice would be for you the
>> HornetQ crowd to ask the pmc for a rename. My understanding is that the
>> intent is not to morph the two projects, but keep HornetQ as a better
>> alternative/replacement for ActiveMQ in the future. If that is true, staying
>> honest and not blurring the branding lines, shows your pride with the better
>> project and you'd have to work hard to convince users that you have
>> something better to offer and grow a community.
>>
>> Keep in mind that the ActiveMQ PMC is just the sponsoring entity, that is
>> responsible to guide hornetq through the process of incubation.
>>
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03/24/2015 03:27 PM, Andy Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>> +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, lo
>>
>> o
>>
>>> 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 <ar...@artnaseef.com> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
I was just speaking to the WHY such a drastic change is needed. Not
the, 'will it succeed' :)
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But Apollo didn't succeed, did it? And it was advertised the same way as
> activemq6 and the future of activemq.
>
> Now it seems that you are convinced that where Apollo failed to attract a
> community HornetQ will succeed. And bare in mind that I am not talking at
> all about technical merits. Apollo has its brilliant lines of code and so
> does HornetQ, I am sure.
>
> After all that's been said, my opinion and advice would be for you the
> HornetQ crowd to ask the pmc for a rename. My understanding is that the
> intent is not to morph the two projects, but keep HornetQ as a better
> alternative/replacement for ActiveMQ in the future. If that is true, staying
> honest and not blurring the branding lines, shows your pride with the better
> project and you'd have to work hard to convince users that you have
> something better to offer and grow a community.
>
> Keep in mind that the ActiveMQ PMC is just the sponsoring entity, that is
> responsible to guide hornetq through the process of incubation.
>
> Hadrian
>
>
>
> On 03/24/2015 03:27 PM, Andy Taylor wrote:
>>
>> +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, lo
>
> o
>
>> 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 <ar...@artnaseef.com> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
But Apollo didn't succeed, did it? And it was advertised the same way as
activemq6 and the future of activemq.
Now it seems that you are convinced that where Apollo failed to attract
a community HornetQ will succeed. And bare in mind that I am not talking
at all about technical merits. Apollo has its brilliant lines of code
and so does HornetQ, I am sure.
After all that's been said, my opinion and advice would be for you the
HornetQ crowd to ask the pmc for a rename. My understanding is that the
intent is not to morph the two projects, but keep HornetQ as a better
alternative/replacement for ActiveMQ in the future. If that is true,
staying honest and not blurring the branding lines, shows your pride
with the better project and you'd have to work hard to convince users
that you have something better to offer and grow a community.
Keep in mind that the ActiveMQ PMC is just the sponsoring entity, that
is responsible to guide hornetq through the process of incubation.
Hadrian
On 03/24/2015 03:27 PM, Andy Taylor wrote:
> +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, lo
o
> 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 <ar...@artnaseef.com> 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.
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>.
+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 <ar...@artnaseef.com> 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.
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
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 <ar...@artnaseef.com> 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.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
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.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Weiqi Gao <we...@gmail.com>.
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 <hz...@gmail.com> 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 <mt...@redhat.com> 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 <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> 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 <an...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <ar...@artnaseef.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
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 <hz...@gmail.com> 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 <mt...@redhat.com> 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 <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> 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 <an...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <ar...@artnaseef.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
> On Mar 24, 2015, at 12:12 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> 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 <mt...@redhat.com> 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 <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> 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 <an...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <ar...@artnaseef.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
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 <mt...@redhat.com> 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 <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> 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 <an...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> 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 <ar...@artnaseef.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by "Jamie G." <ja...@gmail.com>.
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 <mt...@redhat.com> 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 <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> 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 <an...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> 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 <ar...@artnaseef.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
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 <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> 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 <an...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> 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 <ar...@artnaseef.com>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
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 <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>>> 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 <an...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> 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 <ar...@artnaseef.com>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
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 <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>> 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 <an...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> 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 <ar...@artnaseef.com>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
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 <hz...@gmail.com> 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 <an...@gmail.com> 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 <ar...@artnaseef.com>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
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 <hz...@gmail.com> 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 <an...@gmail.com> 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 <ar...@artnaseef.com>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
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 <hz...@gmail.com> 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 <an...@gmail.com> 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 <ar...@artnaseef.com> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
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 <hz...@gmail.com> 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 <an...@gmail.com> 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 <ar...@artnaseef.com> 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.
>>>>
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
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 <an...@gmail.com> 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 <ar...@artnaseef.com> 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.
>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
+1 to the -M1 naming, I think that captures intent perfectly.
On 23 March 2015 at 10:09, Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com> 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 <ar...@artnaseef.com> 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.
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>.
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 <ar...@artnaseef.com> 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.
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
I see - that makes sense. It definitely would help to have an enumeration of
features and functions and their planned state so we know what the end-goal
looks like for reaching the "official" 6.0.0 state. However, I can see
working with the community on a feature-by-feature basis instead, if we can
get the community to help us down that path.
Any thoughts on how we engage the community to help draw out the needs from
ActiveMQ 5.x that are lacking in ActiveMQ 6.0.0-M#?
Also, how about web pages? Will there be a clear indication of web pages
for the new software so they can easily be distinguished from old pages
(thinking about google searches, for example)?
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693628.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
Apologies for late reply I was on PTO, end of last week.
+1 for 6.0.0-M#
On 20/03/15 20:40, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:25 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> 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.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:25 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> 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.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
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)?
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693559.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
I don't disagree. Create jiras and for those issues in JIRA. We can then
figure out ways to mitigate them to make the transition easier for AMQ 5
users.
On Friday, March 20, 2015, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> A complete rewrite means users need to carefully look at what's there and
> what's not, and those of us building the software need to put in extra
> effort to even figure that out ourselves. It also means starting over on
> learning the software (how to install, configure, deploy, operate, monitor,
> alert, etc).
>
> A major version bump on projects may involve refactoring and reworking
> significant parts of the code, and when it does, it's clear to the
> developers what has been changed and lost from the prior release. Then
> it's
> easy to document. (Like this: http://tomcat.apache.org/migration-8.html).
>
> If we had a list of all ActiveMQ features, and the state of those features
> in HornetQ (e.g. implemented, partially implemented, won't implement, etc),
> that would certainly go a long way to furthering the entire discussion.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693553.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
+1
A complete rewrite means users need to carefully look at what's there and
what's not, and those of us building the software need to put in extra
effort to even figure that out ourselves. It also means starting over on
learning the software (how to install, configure, deploy, operate, monitor,
alert, etc).
A major version bump on projects may involve refactoring and reworking
significant parts of the code, and when it does, it's clear to the
developers what has been changed and lost from the prior release. Then it's
easy to document. (Like this: http://tomcat.apache.org/migration-8.html).
If we had a list of all ActiveMQ features, and the state of those features
in HornetQ (e.g. implemented, partially implemented, won't implement, etc),
that would certainly go a long way to furthering the entire discussion.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693553.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
I think the point is from the user's perspective it's not a complete
rewrite. Most things look and smell like good ole Tomcat when you
upgrade. Sure there are new features sprinkled about, but you don't
have to learn everything anew.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> Tomcat has had complete re-writes. That's what major ver number
> change can mean.
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:30 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>> One thing I see different here from other project major version bumps - we're
>> still talking a complete rewrite. With something like Tomcat 7 to Tomcat 8,
>> there's still a reasonable expectation that the knowledge carried from
>> working with Tomcat 7 carries forward to Tomcat 8 (e.g. the artifacts are
>> likely to have the same purposes; config files are likely to carry the same
>> name, etc). While major versions will break some of that, a good amount
>> usually remains.
>>
>> For that reason, I'm on the fence about the -M1 idea. I like the
>> distinguishing name approach.
>>
>> How about activemq-ng (ng = next-gen)?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693549.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> --
> Hiram Chirino
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
Tomcat has had complete re-writes. That's what major ver number
change can mean.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:30 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> One thing I see different here from other project major version bumps - we're
> still talking a complete rewrite. With something like Tomcat 7 to Tomcat 8,
> there's still a reasonable expectation that the knowledge carried from
> working with Tomcat 7 carries forward to Tomcat 8 (e.g. the artifacts are
> likely to have the same purposes; config files are likely to carry the same
> name, etc). While major versions will break some of that, a good amount
> usually remains.
>
> For that reason, I'm on the fence about the -M1 idea. I like the
> distinguishing name approach.
>
> How about activemq-ng (ng = next-gen)?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693549.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
One thing I see different here from other project major version bumps - we're
still talking a complete rewrite. With something like Tomcat 7 to Tomcat 8,
there's still a reasonable expectation that the knowledge carried from
working with Tomcat 7 carries forward to Tomcat 8 (e.g. the artifacts are
likely to have the same purposes; config files are likely to carry the same
name, etc). While major versions will break some of that, a good amount
usually remains.
For that reason, I'm on the fence about the -M1 idea. I like the
distinguishing name approach.
How about activemq-ng (ng = next-gen)?
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693549.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>.
On 03/20/2015 11:17 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> How is this any different than say CXF 2.7.x to CXF 3.0.x? Both versions use the same maven coordinates. Or Karaf 2.x -> 3.x -> 4.x?
+1 was wondering the same thing
> My opinion is that if this is intended to eventually be a “6.0” of ActiveMQ, then lets keep going that direction. That said, if it’s not ready to be a full replacement, then give it a slightly different naming, like “6.0.0-M1” for milestone 1 or similar. I guess that would be my preference. Until we have all the migration issues hammered out and and feature replacements in place, (and OSGi support) I’m kind uncomfortable calling it 6.0. However, a "release milestone” along that path is still a good idea to get people working on it.
>
> Dan
+1 milestone releases would seem to make it clear where it's going
>
>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 8:57 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>>
>> I will continue to look at this as I can find time.
>>
>> One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq- for the
>> prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the
>> followin:
>>
>> * activemq-ra
>> * activemq-web
>>
>> I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with the
>> activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users. And, I'm especially
>> concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name will be in
>> maven central.
>>
>> Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop
>> maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of
>> confusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693512.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Tim Bish
Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
tim.bish@redhat.com | www.redhat.com
skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
How is this any different than say CXF 2.7.x to CXF 3.0.x? Both versions use the same maven coordinates. Or Karaf 2.x -> 3.x -> 4.x?
My opinion is that if this is intended to eventually be a “6.0” of ActiveMQ, then lets keep going that direction. That said, if it’s not ready to be a full replacement, then give it a slightly different naming, like “6.0.0-M1” for milestone 1 or similar. I guess that would be my preference. Until we have all the migration issues hammered out and and feature replacements in place, (and OSGi support) I’m kind uncomfortable calling it 6.0. However, a "release milestone” along that path is still a good idea to get people working on it.
Dan
> On Mar 19, 2015, at 8:57 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>
> I will continue to look at this as I can find time.
>
> One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq- for the
> prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the
> followin:
>
> * activemq-ra
> * activemq-web
>
> I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with the
> activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users. And, I'm especially
> concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name will be in
> maven central.
>
> Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop
> maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of
> confusion.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693512.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
I will continue to look at this as I can find time.
One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq- for the
prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the
followin:
* activemq-ra
* activemq-web
I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with the
activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users. And, I'm especially
concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name will be in
maven central.
Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop
maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of
confusion.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693512.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
Regardless of being an issue or not.. please go further on your
analysis. place the output on /tmp or anywhere else.. and lets us know
if this is the only issue you see.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:32 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> There is a bigger concern here. Apache project releases are source code
> releases. The intent is for folks to be able to work in these directories.
>
> Failing the build on license checks on non-build files is going to be a
> concern. It just doesn't make sense - and it should be easy to fix.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693508.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
There is a bigger concern here. Apache project releases are source code
releases. The intent is for folks to be able to work in these directories.
Failing the build on license checks on non-build files is going to be a
concern. It just doesn't make sense - and it should be easy to fix.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693508.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Clebert <cl...@gmail.com>.
We can fix that. But it's not a reason to hold the release. Just send it to /tmp/build.log
-- Clebert Suconic typing on the iPhone.
> On Mar 19, 2015, at 18:56, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>
> -1
>
> First off, please start a new thread for the next vote. This is getting
> confusing. (That has nothing to do with the -1).
>
> Second, I have to -1 on this vote because of a build failure while trying to
> build the project using the following command which captures the full
> output:
>
> script BUILD.log mvn clean install
>
> The error indicates the file BUILD.log is missing a license header.
>
> I look forward to the next RC!
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693505.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>.
raised a PR to fix your build issue ->
https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/pull/193
On 19/03/15 22:56, artnaseef wrote:
> -1
>
> First off, please start a new thread for the next vote. This is getting
> confusing. (That has nothing to do with the -1).
>
> Second, I have to -1 on this vote because of a build failure while trying to
> build the project using the following command which captures the full
> output:
>
> script BUILD.log mvn clean install
>
> The error indicates the file BUILD.log is missing a license header.
>
> I look forward to the next RC!
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693505.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
-1
First off, please start a new thread for the next vote. This is getting
confusing. (That has nothing to do with the -1).
Second, I have to -1 on this vote because of a build failure while trying to
build the project using the following command which captures the full
output:
script BUILD.log mvn clean install
The error indicates the file BUILD.log is missing a license header.
I look forward to the next RC!
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693505.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
+1
On 17 Mar 2015 09:26, "Martyn Taylor" <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> I've cut a third release candidate of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0, addressing
> the RC2 feedback from community members.
>
> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for
> AMQP, STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE.
>
> The release notes can be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
> projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>
> The binary distributions can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> orgapacheactivemq-1038/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>
> The source archives can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> orgapacheactivemq-1038/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>
> The Maven repository is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1038/
>
> The source tag:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=
> tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>
> The project website for that version has been staged to:
> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>
> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>
> Regards
>
> Martyn
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding)
I tested out the src+bin tar.gz archives as follows:
- Checked the license/notice files were present and look ok.
- Verified the sigs using key from
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/martyntaylor.asc
- Checked the deps in the binary tar look good license wise.
- Built the src archive, ran the tests from the fast-tests profile.
- Fired up the broker using the binary archive.
- Browsed the docs on the embedded webserver (project info page now
working nicely).
- Used the JMX management interface to add a 'JMS queue'.
- Kicked the tyres by sending+receiving a message from the queue using
an AMQP client.
Robbie
On 17 March 2015 at 09:26, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> I've cut a third release candidate of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0, addressing the
> RC2 feedback from community members.
>
> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for AMQP,
> STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE.
>
> The release notes can be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>
> The binary distributions can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1038/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>
> The source archives can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1038/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>
> The Maven repository is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1038/
>
> The source tag:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>
> The project website for that version has been staged to:
> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>
> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>
> Regards
>
> Martyn
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net>.
Hi,
I’ve checked release candidate:
- Checked the signature
- Built the source release
- Checked dependencies
- Ran the broker
- Ran 5.x client against it
- Checked JMX, Jolokia APIs
- Ran couple of examples
- Checked docs, web site, Javadocs
It all looks good from here. Great work.
+1
Regards
--
Dejan Bosanac
----------------------
Red Hat, Inc.
dbosanac@redhat.com
Twitter: @dejanb
Blog: http://sensatic.net
ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> I've cut a third release candidate of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0, addressing
> the RC2 feedback from community members.
>
> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for
> AMQP, STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE.
>
> The release notes can be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
> projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>
> The binary distributions can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> orgapacheactivemq-1038/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>
> The source archives can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> orgapacheactivemq-1038/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>
> The Maven repository is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1038/
>
> The source tag:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=
> tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>
> The project website for that version has been staged to:
> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>
> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>
> Regards
>
> Martyn
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
+1 Looks good to me. Great job guys!
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> I've cut a third release candidate of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0, addressing the
> RC2 feedback from community members.
>
> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for AMQP,
> STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE.
>
> The release notes can be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>
> The binary distributions can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1038/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>
> The source archives can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1038/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>
> The Maven repository is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1038/
>
> The source tag:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>
> The project website for that version has been staged to:
> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>
> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>
> Regards
>
> Martyn
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
Hello all.
I've cut a third release candidate of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0, addressing
the RC2 feedback from community members.
This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for
AMQP, STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE.
The release notes can be found here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
The binary distributions can be found here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1038/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
The source archives can be found here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1038/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
The Maven repository is here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1038/
The source tag:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
The project website for that version has been staged to:
http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
[ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
Here's my (non-binding) +1
Regards
Martyn
[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC2)
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
Hello all.
I've cut a second release candidate of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 addressing
the initial RC feedback from community members.
This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for
AMQP, STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
The release notes can be found here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
The binary distributions can be found here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
The source archives can be found here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
The Maven repository is here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/
The source tag:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
The project website for that version has been staged to:
http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
[ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
Here's my (non-binding) +1
Regards
Martyn
Re: [CANCEL] [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
Thanks Robbie. I'll ensure these issues are addressed in the next RC.
On 12/03/15 12:15, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> I tried out the source and binary tar.gz archives a little.
>
> The source release (which is the one that really counts) has no
> LICENSE file, and the NOTICE file contains the ASLv2 text which should
> be in LICENSE but lacks the text required for NOTICE. See
> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple for the minimal
> starting point for the ifles, and elsewhere on the page for details on
> expanding from that.
>
> The binary release has no LICENSE or NOTICE files in the first dir.
> There is a LICENSE file in the licenses subdir, it should be moved to
> the main dir and updated with any additional licenses/pointers needed
> for bundled dependencies not using ASLv2. There are more details on
> this on the page linked above.
>
> When I tried reading the documentation via the embedded jetty I got a
> 404 when reaching "3. Project Info" either by keyboard navigation or
> the menu. It tries to load
> http://localhost:8161/user-manual/project-info/project-info.html.
>
> On the "7. Using the Server" page, the "Configuration files" section
> has a missing/incomplete reference: "All the parameters in this file
> are described in ?. Please see ? for more information on this file".
> Further down the page in "The main configuration file" there is
> actually a reference link but it just links back to the same page.
>
> Going to the "53. Configuration Reference" page using the menu
> instead, I noticed that all the quick links in the table are to the
> .md files and so 404 when used.
>
> I noticed an NPE when kicking the tyres with an AMQP client, which I
> actually raised as ACTIVEMQ6-55 a while ago but never looped back and
> submitted a fix for, so I now have. It would be good to get that in
> the release since its really easy to hit out the box if you dont first
> configure a JMS queue in the config file and get the appropriately
> formatted address string to use it. I noticed a readme issue about
> building the distro when trying that change out, I also submitted a
> pull request for that.
>
> Robbie
>
> On 12 March 2015 at 11:27, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Cancelling the vote based on feedback from Gary Tully. A new RC is to
>> follow addressing all of Gary's comments.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Martyn
>>
>> --
>>
>> Hello all.
>>
>> I've cut a first release candidate of the ActiveMQ-6 project.
>>
>> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for AMQP,
>> STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
>>
>> --
>>
>> The release notes can be found here:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>>
>> The binary distributions can be found here:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1035/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>
>> The source archives can be found here:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1035/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>
>> The Maven repository is here:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1035/
>>
>> The source tag:
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>>
>> The project website for that version has been staged to:
>> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>>
>> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>
>> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>
>> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Martyn
>> On 10/03/15 15:14, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>> Hello all.
>>>
>>> I've cut a first release candidate of the ActiveMQ-6 project.
>>>
>>> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for
>>> AMQP, STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
>>>
Re: [CANCEL] [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
I tried out the source and binary tar.gz archives a little.
The source release (which is the one that really counts) has no
LICENSE file, and the NOTICE file contains the ASLv2 text which should
be in LICENSE but lacks the text required for NOTICE. See
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple for the minimal
starting point for the ifles, and elsewhere on the page for details on
expanding from that.
The binary release has no LICENSE or NOTICE files in the first dir.
There is a LICENSE file in the licenses subdir, it should be moved to
the main dir and updated with any additional licenses/pointers needed
for bundled dependencies not using ASLv2. There are more details on
this on the page linked above.
When I tried reading the documentation via the embedded jetty I got a
404 when reaching "3. Project Info" either by keyboard navigation or
the menu. It tries to load
http://localhost:8161/user-manual/project-info/project-info.html.
On the "7. Using the Server" page, the "Configuration files" section
has a missing/incomplete reference: "All the parameters in this file
are described in ?. Please see ? for more information on this file".
Further down the page in "The main configuration file" there is
actually a reference link but it just links back to the same page.
Going to the "53. Configuration Reference" page using the menu
instead, I noticed that all the quick links in the table are to the
.md files and so 404 when used.
I noticed an NPE when kicking the tyres with an AMQP client, which I
actually raised as ACTIVEMQ6-55 a while ago but never looped back and
submitted a fix for, so I now have. It would be good to get that in
the release since its really easy to hit out the box if you dont first
configure a JMS queue in the config file and get the appropriately
formatted address string to use it. I noticed a readme issue about
building the distro when trying that change out, I also submitted a
pull request for that.
Robbie
On 12 March 2015 at 11:27, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Cancelling the vote based on feedback from Gary Tully. A new RC is to
> follow addressing all of Gary's comments.
>
> Thanks
> Martyn
>
> --
>
> Hello all.
>
> I've cut a first release candidate of the ActiveMQ-6 project.
>
> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for AMQP,
> STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
>
> --
>
> The release notes can be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>
> The binary distributions can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1035/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>
> The source archives can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1035/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>
> The Maven repository is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1035/
>
> The source tag:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>
> The project website for that version has been staged to:
> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>
> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>
> Regards
>
> Martyn
> On 10/03/15 15:14, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>
>> Hello all.
>>
>> I've cut a first release candidate of the ActiveMQ-6 project.
>>
>> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for
>> AMQP, STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
>>
>
[CANCEL] [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
Cancelling the vote based on feedback from Gary Tully. A new RC is to
follow addressing all of Gary's comments.
Thanks
Martyn
--
Hello all.
I've cut a first release candidate of the ActiveMQ-6 project.
This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for
AMQP, STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
--
The release notes can be found here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
The binary distributions can be found here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1035/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
The source archives can be found here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1035/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
The Maven repository is here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1035/
The source tag:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
The project website for that version has been staged to:
http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
[ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
Here's my (non-binding) +1
Regards
Martyn
On 10/03/15 15:14, Martyn Taylor wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> I've cut a first release candidate of the ActiveMQ-6 project.
>
> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for
> AMQP, STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
great work :-)
sigs on source look good.
license present on all files.
source has appropriately licensed dependencies.
source distro builds and broker starts and looks great.
jms/queue example works
verification of openwire support using 5.x client not so good.
producer works (and it should not) and consumer gets destination not exist.
adding queue definition to broker xml sorts it so this is not a blocker.
There is a cat-X dependency in the tests that should be optional; i.e:
enabled with a non default profile
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project jms-tests: Could not resolve
dependencies for project
org.apache.activemq.tests:jms-tests:jar:6.0.0: The repository system
is offline but the artifact
org.jboss.jbossts.jts:jbossjts-jacorb:jar:4.17.13.Final is not
available in the local repository.
(I had removed it locally to ensure it was not referenced by the default build.)
This is a blocker, I got to -1 the release.
On 10 March 2015 at 15:14, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> I've cut a first release candidate of the ActiveMQ-6 project.
>
> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support for AMQP,
> STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
>
> --
>
> The release notes can be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>
> The binary distributions can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1035/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>
> The source archives can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1035/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>
> The Maven repository is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1035/
>
> The source tag:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>
> The project website for that version has been staged to:
> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>
> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>
> Regards
>
> Martyn