You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> on 2015/04/17 19:52:35 UTC
Plan clarification
I just wanted to highlight what I a assume is the natural result of
using a code name for the code donation:
Apache ActiveMQ will have multiple products with multiple versions:
a. ActiveMQ - (version 5.x.x)
b. ActiveMQ ${codename} - (version 1.x.x)
This means that we are not yet ready to declare that ActiveMQ
${codename} is the successor to ActiveMQ 5.x. We will wait until the
product matures to make that decision.
If anyone disagrees, please speak up cause that's what I'm reporting
to the board.
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: Plan clarification
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
Yes
On Friday, April 17, 2015, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> Hiram - the new code base will be released with version number 1.0.0,
> right?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Plan-clarification-tp4695182p4695189.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: Plan clarification
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
Hiram - the new code base will be released with version number 1.0.0, right?
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Plan-clarification-tp4695182p4695189.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Plan clarification
Posted by Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>.
Many of us would like to be but those discussions about the future of the community are hidden from the community.
> On Apr 17, 2015, at 3:49 PM, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I disagree simply because the folks on dev@ are not familiar with PMC
> discussions.
Re: Plan clarification
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
OK, fair enough. That's two people who disagree with my sentiments. That's
enough for me to withdraw my objections and let it happen on dev@. I have
no problem with this.
Bruce
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:59 PM, David Jencks <
david_jencks@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> I'm not sure how that the fact that some discussion about the report has
> occurred on private is relevant. I think the report will eventually be
> publicly available, and it's hard to imagine we can say anything on dev
> more inflammatory that what we already have. I think it would be more
> transparent and community building to discuss the report on dev….
> especially since my impression is one of our goals is to increase community
> involvement and eventually expand the pmc perhaps starting with helpful
> contributors to this discussion :-)
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Apr 17, 2015, at 3:49 PM, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I disagree simply because the folks on dev@ are not familiar with PMC
> > discussions.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 1:43 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hey Bruce - the original thread for the board report was on @dev.
> Unless
> >> there's a real need to take it back to @private, I think it is good to
> work
> >> through the report in the open so members of the community can see the
> >> discussion and contribute to it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Plan-clarification-tp4695182p4695188.html
> >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > perl -e 'print
> > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
> >
> > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> > Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>
>
--
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
Re: Plan clarification
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
I'm not sure how that the fact that some discussion about the report has occurred on private is relevant. I think the report will eventually be publicly available, and it's hard to imagine we can say anything on dev more inflammatory that what we already have. I think it would be more transparent and community building to discuss the report on dev…. especially since my impression is one of our goals is to increase community involvement and eventually expand the pmc perhaps starting with helpful contributors to this discussion :-)
thanks
david jencks
On Apr 17, 2015, at 3:49 PM, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I disagree simply because the folks on dev@ are not familiar with PMC
> discussions.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 1:43 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Bruce - the original thread for the board report was on @dev. Unless
>> there's a real need to take it back to @private, I think it is good to work
>> through the report in the open so members of the community can see the
>> discussion and contribute to it.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Plan-clarification-tp4695182p4695188.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
>
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
Re: Plan clarification
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
I disagree simply because the folks on dev@ are not familiar with PMC
discussions.
Bruce
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 1:43 PM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> Hey Bruce - the original thread for the board report was on @dev. Unless
> there's a real need to take it back to @private, I think it is good to work
> through the report in the open so members of the community can see the
> discussion and contribute to it.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Plan-clarification-tp4695182p4695188.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
--
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
Re: Plan clarification
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
I think it's fine if we discuss the incubator option in Dev. But please
let's do it in a new thread.
On Friday, April 17, 2015, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> Hey Bruce - the original thread for the board report was on @dev. Unless
> there's a real need to take it back to @private, I think it is good to work
> through the report in the open so members of the community can see the
> discussion and contribute to it.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Plan-clarification-tp4695182p4695188.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: Plan clarification
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
Hey Bruce - the original thread for the board report was on @dev. Unless
there's a real need to take it back to @private, I think it is good to work
through the report in the open so members of the community can see the
discussion and contribute to it.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Plan-clarification-tp4695182p4695188.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Plan clarification
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
Since your concerns are with regard to the board report, this discussion
should be taking place on that discussion thread on the PMC mailing list,
not on the dev list. Can you please move this discussion there, Hadrian?
Bruce
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like the report to explain why the hornetq donation could/should
> not happen in the incubator. The <code> podling currently lacks diversity.
> Hiding it under the activemq project complicates the diversity problems
> that already exist in activemq. It seems to me that by keeping it under
> activemq the intention is to subvert the diversity requirement without
> which it would not graduate from the incubator. This would be detrimental
> both to the activemq project and especially to the <code> project.
>
> The <code> subproject may also take any direction best fit for the project
> in the incubator without expectations of compatibility with activemq (which
> under activemq will likely cause further friction).
>
> Best,
> Hadrian
>
>
> On 04/17/2015 01:52 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>
>> I just wanted to highlight what I a assume is the natural result of
>> using a code name for the code donation:
>>
>> Apache ActiveMQ will have multiple products with multiple versions:
>> a. ActiveMQ - (version 5.x.x)
>> b. ActiveMQ ${codename} - (version 1.x.x)
>>
>> This means that we are not yet ready to declare that ActiveMQ
>> ${codename} is the successor to ActiveMQ 5.x. We will wait until the
>> product matures to make that decision.
>>
>> If anyone disagrees, please speak up cause that's what I'm reporting
>> to the board.
>>
>>
--
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
Re: Plan clarification
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
I would like the report to explain why the hornetq donation could/should
not happen in the incubator. The <code> podling currently lacks
diversity. Hiding it under the activemq project complicates the
diversity problems that already exist in activemq. It seems to me that
by keeping it under activemq the intention is to subvert the diversity
requirement without which it would not graduate from the incubator. This
would be detrimental both to the activemq project and especially to the
<code> project.
The <code> subproject may also take any direction best fit for the
project in the incubator without expectations of compatibility with
activemq (which under activemq will likely cause further friction).
Best,
Hadrian
On 04/17/2015 01:52 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> I just wanted to highlight what I a assume is the natural result of
> using a code name for the code donation:
>
> Apache ActiveMQ will have multiple products with multiple versions:
> a. ActiveMQ - (version 5.x.x)
> b. ActiveMQ ${codename} - (version 1.x.x)
>
> This means that we are not yet ready to declare that ActiveMQ
> ${codename} is the successor to ActiveMQ 5.x. We will wait until the
> product matures to make that decision.
>
> If anyone disagrees, please speak up cause that's what I'm reporting
> to the board.
>