[VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>]

Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
ActiveMQ project roadmap"

linked here for convenience :
- http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
- http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html


I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming ActiveMQ 6.

[+1] -  agree
[-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
[0] - neutral but go ahead

This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.

Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[jgenender <jg...@apache.org>]

-1 to making Artemis ActiveMQ 6 now.

Art was pretty much dead on and I fully agree with Hadrian.

Hadrian said it so I won't get into that level of detail, but until we see
Artemis truly as a successor both due to adoption and workability with AMQ
5, I am not ready to see it change.

I do want to see that change happen at some point, but it needs to be ready
on many counts.



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>]

-1 this intent was expressed a while ago and the result was keeping 
HornetQ under the Artemis (sister of Apollo) name until such a time 
where there is evidence of adoption and migration away from the 5.x.

ActiveMQ 5.x is very much in use and has much, much broader adoption 
than Artemis. One interesting point (which makes the timing of this vote 
quite suspicious) is the launch of an ActiveMQ 5.x service by AWS [1]. 
To me, this is a deja vu of using PR rather than technical merits to 
prove the viability of a project.

I am all for the success of Artemis, but that has to be proven by 
adoption, not by tricking the users in believing that this is a natural 
upgrade from ActiveMQ 5.x.

Bruce, until the points of confusion are resolved, there is no point in 
having this vote to pass (what?) a confusing resolution stating intent. 
Let's deal in facts.

Again, strong -1.
Hadrian


On 12/06/2017 09:34 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
> My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially state
> the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
> ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
> concerns. For this I vote +1.
> 
> We must document this intent clearly on the website, stating that there is
> no plan to deprecate ActiveMQ 5.x and explain that ActiveMQ 5.x development
> line will continue. We also must make it very clear on the website that
> ActiveMQ 6.x is not officially released yet. There are too many users who
> will not upgrade their current environments easily (or possibly ever) and
> we must not leave them in a lurch.
> 
> I agree that there are several points of confusion that must be addressed
> and these need to be identified on a wiki page so that the project can work
> through each of them. Also, more testing must be done to prove that all
> ActiveMQ 5.x supported scenarios have been covered by Artemis, including
> the migration of existing ActiveMQ 5.x configurations to Artemis (this
> migration must be exhaustively documented).
> 
> Another topic that I think should be addressed is the version number that
> is currently being used for Artemis as releasing it with a version of 2.x
> sends a confusing messaging to the community.
> 
> To address the vendor version questions, such questions concerning vendor
> products have zero bearing on the Apache ActiveMQ project and are not the
> project's concern.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> +1
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:33 PM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
>>> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>>>
>>> linked here for convenience :
>>> -
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-
>> surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
>>> -
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-
>> Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
>>> ActiveMQ 6.
>>>
>>> [+1] -  agree
>>> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
>>> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>>>
>>> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>>>
>>> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
>>>
>> --
>> Hiram Chirino
>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>
> 
> 
> 

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>]

That's why new project usually start in the incubator, whey they prove 
that they can govern, create a community and the like.

HornetQ preferred to get inside ActiveMQ just because of the strong RH 
presence in the PMC. Last time this went all the way to the board (one 
board member called if a "switch-a-roo" iirc).

If you want we can talk about the story of another ActiveMQ sub-project 
called Camel. Or another project that started as a sub-project in a 
community, then moved a sub-project in Felix, and now it's a TLP.

How about a vote to make Artemis a TLP, not ActiveMQ 6. There's already 
a Qpid, a RocketMQ. Would that be satisfactory? I would +1 that.

Cheers,
Hadrian

On 12/06/2017 03:13 PM, Justin Bertram wrote:
>> What changed to start it all over again?
> 
> The answer to your question is not a secret.  I kicked off a discussion on
> the user list about clarifying the ActiveMQ road-map based on interactions
> with confused users.  This vote grew out of that discussion.
> 
>> This is not a vote for a controversial feature people can't agree on, nor
> on accepting an external contribution, nor a release vote. What is it?
> 
> In my view this discussion is about clarifying the road-map for ActiveMQ.
> I would encourage you to take a look at the original email I sent which
> kicked off the discussion to get more clarity.  It seems you've missed a
> key part of the discussion so far.
> 
>> Some see Artemis as the future of ActiveMQ. Other gray beards see it as a
> project that needs to get more adoption an prove itself before it's clear
> that it can be the evolution of the current 5.x version...
> 
> The "adoption" argument seems a bit circular to me.  I don't see how a
> project can be run or at the very least a road-map defined based on future
> adoption.  It seems to me that you're saying we have to wait for adoption
> to clarify the ActiveMQ road-map, but in my opinion projects without a
> clear road-map aren't likely to grow adoption significantly.
> 
> In another email you said we need to have this "clarified [sic] internally,
> not externally."  However, isn't relying on adoption essentially
> outsourcing the decision to external entities?  In my opinion, that's more
> akin to just seeing where the wind is blowing rather than really building
> community.
> 
>> No consensus yet.
> 
> Consensus as I understand it is just a majority of people who believe the
> same way.  According to this vote so far there are 13 (including me) who
> are in favor of Artemis becoming ActiveMQ 6 and 4 who are opposed.  That's
> 76% to 24% respectively.  Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems like consensus to
> me.
> 
> 
> Justin
> 
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Gary,
>>
>> That is precisely what folks vote -1 against. I hope you are not implying
>> that the -1s should not be counted because you believe the -1s where for a
>> different reason.
>>
>> Surely you must remember the same issue being raised and a vote called
>> some 2 years ago if my memory serves me well (I can look it up if
>> necessary). Exactly same vote, exactly same statement of intent. You know
>> how that went. What changed to start it all over again?
>>
>> Can we agree that this vote is a PR/marketing play, not technology? This
>> is not a vote for a controversial feature people can't agree on, nor on
>> accepting an external contribution, nor a release vote. What is it?
>>
>> Some see Artemis as the future of ActiveMQ. Other gray beards see it as a
>> project that needs to get more adoption an prove itself before it's clear
>> that it can be the evolution of the current 5.x version that serves the
>> market very well (proven yet again by AWS). No consensus yet.
>>
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/06/2017 10:45 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially state
>>>> the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
>>>> ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
>>>> concerns.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This was also my understanding and what I voted for.
>>> Maybe the intent of the vote needs to be clarified.
>>>
>>> is this what folks voted against?
>>>
>>> gary.
>>>
>>>
> 

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>]

> What changed to start it all over again?

The answer to your question is not a secret.  I kicked off a discussion on
the user list about clarifying the ActiveMQ road-map based on interactions
with confused users.  This vote grew out of that discussion.

> This is not a vote for a controversial feature people can't agree on, nor
on accepting an external contribution, nor a release vote. What is it?

In my view this discussion is about clarifying the road-map for ActiveMQ.
I would encourage you to take a look at the original email I sent which
kicked off the discussion to get more clarity.  It seems you've missed a
key part of the discussion so far.

> Some see Artemis as the future of ActiveMQ. Other gray beards see it as a
project that needs to get more adoption an prove itself before it's clear
that it can be the evolution of the current 5.x version...

The "adoption" argument seems a bit circular to me.  I don't see how a
project can be run or at the very least a road-map defined based on future
adoption.  It seems to me that you're saying we have to wait for adoption
to clarify the ActiveMQ road-map, but in my opinion projects without a
clear road-map aren't likely to grow adoption significantly.

In another email you said we need to have this "clarified [sic] internally,
not externally."  However, isn't relying on adoption essentially
outsourcing the decision to external entities?  In my opinion, that's more
akin to just seeing where the wind is blowing rather than really building
community.

> No consensus yet.

Consensus as I understand it is just a majority of people who believe the
same way.  According to this vote so far there are 13 (including me) who
are in favor of Artemis becoming ActiveMQ 6 and 4 who are opposed.  That's
76% to 24% respectively.  Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems like consensus to
me.


Justin

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gary,
>
> That is precisely what folks vote -1 against. I hope you are not implying
> that the -1s should not be counted because you believe the -1s where for a
> different reason.
>
> Surely you must remember the same issue being raised and a vote called
> some 2 years ago if my memory serves me well (I can look it up if
> necessary). Exactly same vote, exactly same statement of intent. You know
> how that went. What changed to start it all over again?
>
> Can we agree that this vote is a PR/marketing play, not technology? This
> is not a vote for a controversial feature people can't agree on, nor on
> accepting an external contribution, nor a release vote. What is it?
>
> Some see Artemis as the future of ActiveMQ. Other gray beards see it as a
> project that needs to get more adoption an prove itself before it's clear
> that it can be the evolution of the current 5.x version that serves the
> market very well (proven yet again by AWS). No consensus yet.
>
> Hadrian
>
>
>
> On 12/06/2017 10:45 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially state
>>> the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
>>> ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
>>> concerns.
>>>
>>
>>
>> This was also my understanding and what I voted for.
>> Maybe the intent of the vote needs to be clarified.
>>
>> is this what folks voted against?
>>
>> gary.
>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[jgenender <jg...@apache.org>]

BRUCE!!! o/  Good to see you!


Bruce Snyder wrote
> I disagree with discussing or even considering anything the vendors want
> to
> do. Even when I worked for LogicBlaze and then IONA, I disagreed with
> trying to drive our company agenda via the Apache ActiveMQ project. But
> given that employees of different companies participate in Apache
> ActiveMQ,
> I can't control them and I won't let their company agendas control the
> Apache ActiveMQ project.

Unfortunately its the elephant in the room and there is clear evidence of
the confusion going on.  That evidence was posted above, so it should be
discussed as its cornerstone to being part of the problem.  Not to mention
it was central focus to the discussions that occurred at ActiveMQ (and
Camel, etc) in the past.

Perhaps that discussion is not meant for dev and is a PMC issue.  But it
certainly is a reason for some of the kinks in the armor.  Bottom line is
their is certainly confusion in the community.


Bruce Snyder wrote
> I had no idea that Clebert was going to call for a vote until I saw it in
> flight early this morning. So, I thought, 'well, what the fuck, I'll
> vote'.
> Although Clebert works for Red Hat, he does not care what they do or why
> they do it. His full-time job is working on Artemis and he is passionate
> about it. Unfortunately, his passion and eagerness get the best of him
> sometimes causing him to take action as best he knows. Also consider that
> Clebert is not very knowledgeable about the ASF and ways of the ActiveMQ
> project.
> 
> With my thought to step forward and create the roadmap, I intend to work
> with anyone who wants to participate to identify the tasks to be addressed
> to have Artemis match some level of parity with ActiveMQ with the goal of
> eventually having Artemis become ActiveMQ 6.x. I hold no preconceived
> notions about this effort or the time it will take, it could take another
> year or two years, I have no idea.

and this is what its all about ;-) Community and moving forward.  I do think
that Artemis should have more prominence on the ActiveMQ web site to show
its a strong part of the ActiveMQ family.  What we don't want to do is have
Artemis be another Apollo (supposed AMQ6 and ultimately abandoned).  So
IMHO, we should make Artemis more strongly associated with the ActiveMQ
project off its parent and build it from there.  Begin on the adoption and
migration path and get that community going.  Then its all good and everyone
is happy.  With that growth, perhaps Artemis WILL be the new ActiveMQ 6. :-)

Side note: Clebert is a great guy and one of the folks who I do see who
cares about the community and the code.  I'm not throwing anyone else under
the bus by comparison, but he has made it clear that he places Apache first
in past discussions.  For this its good to have him working with all of this
and I do know his intentions were benevolent and not that of his employer.  

Jeff



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>]

I don't disagree with the technical reasons, I call this compatibility
because it's about defining a very clear migration path and smoothing the
effort involved from a user point of when migrating from ActiveMQ 5.x ->
Artemis. In fact, I am going to step forward and start to define a roadmap
for this effort and encourage everyone to participate.

I disagree with discussing or even considering anything the vendors want to
do. Even when I worked for LogicBlaze and then IONA, I disagreed with
trying to drive our company agenda via the Apache ActiveMQ project. But
given that employees of different companies participate in Apache ActiveMQ,
I can't control them and I won't let their company agendas control the
Apache ActiveMQ project.

I had no idea that Clebert was going to call for a vote until I saw it in
flight early this morning. So, I thought, 'well, what the fuck, I'll vote'.
Although Clebert works for Red Hat, he does not care what they do or why
they do it. His full-time job is working on Artemis and he is passionate
about it. Unfortunately, his passion and eagerness get the best of him
sometimes causing him to take action as best he knows. Also consider that
Clebert is not very knowledgeable about the ASF and ways of the ActiveMQ
project.

With my thought to step forward and create the roadmap, I intend to work
with anyone who wants to participate to identify the tasks to be addressed
to have Artemis match some level of parity with ActiveMQ with the goal of
eventually having Artemis become ActiveMQ 6.x. I hold no preconceived
notions about this effort or the time it will take, it could take another
year or two years, I have no idea.

Bruce

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:19 AM, jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:

> There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying agenda as
> you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies.  Sorry,
> just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back the
> knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.  That's a shame and
> I really hope that is not the direction this is going.
>
> This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because some folks
> are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its technical
> because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from AMQ5.
> I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic - whatever) is
> being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means its
> the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the old.
> Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on numerical
> versions for a majority of software and this one in particular - that's
> technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is both PR *and*
> technical.
>
> My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis ultimately
> becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has reasonable
> compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some basic
> stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running AMQ5,
> which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority of our
> community.
>
> The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very reasonable.
> Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line so
> that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why is that
> viewed as so unreasonable?
>
> I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming and
> vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an agenda and
> there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
>
> https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-
> what-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
>
> Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
>
> https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/
> activemq/artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
>
> Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a numbering
> with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear people in the
> community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There is no
> ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss AMQ 7.
>
> So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do with
> vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with vendors and
> this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of the day and
> in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with this.
> But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately clouds
> this immensely.
>
> So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers here
> are
> ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are asking a
> relative simple request: Can we please increase the community adoption and
> get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this non-technical
> once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis == ActiveMQ 6.
> IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in HornetQ and
> why it was named Artemis to begin with.
>
> Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon when
> bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and eat it
> too.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-
> f2368404.html
>



-- 
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'

ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>]

Clebert, nobody says to not promote it. Just promote it as what it is, 
ActiveMQ Artemis.

You hope, and I believe you're well intended, is that the PR trick of 
calling it ActiveMQ 6 will drive adoption. But that won't be on its 
merit, but piggybacking on the ActiveMQ reputation. This point of view 
was repeated over and over again. I am curious if you don't understand 
it or you won't accept it.

As we (the community) made this exact mistake in the past, I am 
certainly not ok with it. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and 
so are others.

Cheers,
Hadrian

On 12/06/2017 03:15 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> @Jeff:
> 
> All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and future.
> 
> We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and release
> whenever it was ready.
> 
> We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what would drive
> people using it.. etc.. etc..
> 
> Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no adoption, and
> there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at the
> website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help at
> all!!!).
> 
> If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on the
> website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before
> starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into
> here).
> 
> Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these agenda
> items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
> answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
> used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view on
> where we will get.
> 
> 
> So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis more
> prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying agenda as
>> you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies.  Sorry,
>> just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back the
>> knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.  That's a shame and
>> I really hope that is not the direction this is going.
>>
>> This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because some folks
>> are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its technical
>> because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from AMQ5.
>> I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic - whatever) is
>> being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means its
>> the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the old.
>> Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on numerical
>> versions for a majority of software and this one in particular - that's
>> technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is both PR *and*
>> technical.
>>
>> My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis ultimately
>> becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has reasonable
>> compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some basic
>> stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running AMQ5,
>> which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority of our
>> community.
>>
>> The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very reasonable.
>> Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line so
>> that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why is that
>> viewed as so unreasonable?
>>
>> I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming and
>> vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an agenda and
>> there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
>>
>> https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-what-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
>>
>> Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
>>
>> https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
>>
>> Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a numbering
>> with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear people in the
>> community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There is no
>> ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss AMQ 7.
>>
>> So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do with
>> vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with vendors and
>> this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of the day and
>> in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with this.
>> But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately clouds
>> this immensely.
>>
>> So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers here are
>> ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are asking a
>> relative simple request: Can we please increase the community adoption and
>> get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this non-technical
>> once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis == ActiveMQ 6.
>> IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in HornetQ and
>> why it was named Artemis to begin with.
>>
>> Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon when
>> bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and eat it
>> too.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
> 
> 
> 

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

["John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>]

Bruce,

I see the page, but not the edit button.

John

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:27 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:

> John, as I stated, I did not put any restrictions on the page. None of us
> has any special access to the wiki page, we just log in to the wiki and
> click the 'Edit' button. Are you not able to see the page? Are able to see
> the page but not the 'Edit' button?
>
> Bruce
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:22 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Can you check if "johndament" has edit access?
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:07 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I did not restrict the page. In looking at the page restrictions, there
> > are
> > > none so anyone with credentials for the wiki should be able to view and
> > > edit it.
> > >
> > > Bruce
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:56 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:48 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > According to the ASF Voting page (
> > > > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html):
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority
> rule
> > > > > unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable
> votes
> > > than
> > > > > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> > regardless
> > > > of
> > > > > the number of votes in each category. '
> > > > >
> > > > > However, given that there are some binding -1s, I believe it is in
> > > > > everyone's best interest to stop this vote and prepare a plan to
> move
> > > > > forward as a group.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the interest of moving forward as a group, I have created a page
> > > > > specifically for the Artemis Roadmap here:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/
> > > > ActiveMQ+Artemis+Roadmap
> > > > >
> > > > > I encourage everyone to contribute to this page and discuss it in a
> > > > > separate discussion thread on the dev@activemq list. I will start
> a
> > > > > separate discussion for this topic now.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you please grant committers write access to this page?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Bruce
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> > > > > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > @Justin,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In terms of consensus it depends on what it is with Apache.  I
> know
> > > for
> > > > > > releases you just need a majority vote but for code
> modifications a
> > > -1
> > > > > by a
> > > > > > PMC member is a veto.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In this case I'm not entirely sure but I think the -1 votes in
> this
> > > > > thread
> > > > > > would be considered a veto unless they are changed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> > > > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > @Jeff:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and
> future.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and
> > release
> > > > > > > whenever it was ready.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what
> would
> > > > drive
> > > > > > > people using it.. etc.. etc..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no
> adoption,
> > > and
> > > > > > > there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look
> at
> > > the
> > > > > > > website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't
> > help
> > > > at
> > > > > > > all!!!).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > > website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion
> > before
> > > > > > > starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got
> > into
> > > > > > > here).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these
> > > agenda
> > > > > > > items... we would be back into the same square we are today.
> That
> > > > > > > answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
> > > > > > > used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear
> view
> > > on
> > > > > > > where we will get.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ
> Artemis
> > > more
> > > > > > > prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <
> jgenender@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > There is a vote that is more and more looking like an
> > underlying
> > > > > agenda
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by
> > > companies.
> > > > > > > Sorry,
> > > > > > > > just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back
> the
> > > > > > > > knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.
> > That's a
> > > > > shame
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > I really hope that is not the direction this is going.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR
> because
> > > > some
> > > > > > > folks
> > > > > > > > are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.
> Its
> > > > > > technical
> > > > > > > > because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take
> over
> > > > from
> > > > > > > AMQ5.
> > > > > > > > I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic -
> > > > > whatever)
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new
> AMQ6
> > > > means
> > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > old.
> > > > > > > > Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on
> > > > > numerical
> > > > > > > > versions for a majority of software and this one in
> particular
> > -
> > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is
> > > both
> > > > PR
> > > > > > > *and*
> > > > > > > > technical.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis
> > > > > ultimately
> > > > > > > > becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and
> > has
> > > > > > > reasonable
> > > > > > > > compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like
> > some
> > > > > basic
> > > > > > > > stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are
> > running
> > > > > AMQ5,
> > > > > > > > which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast
> > > majority
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > community.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is
> very
> > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more
> > in
> > > > line
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.
> Why
> > > is
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > viewed as so unreasonable?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier
> about
> > > > naming
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an
> > > agenda
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w
> > > > > > > hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/
> > > > > > > artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has
> a
> > > > > > numbering
> > > > > > > > with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear
> > > > people
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?
> > There
> > > is
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring
> to
> > > > JBoss
> > > > > > AMQ
> > > > > > > 7.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has
> nothing
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with
> > > > vendors
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end
> of
> > > the
> > > > > day
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do
> > > with
> > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > But the cross pollination of employees and committers
> > > unfortunately
> > > > > > > clouds
> > > > > > > > this immensely.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all
> > > nay-sayers
> > > > > > here
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They
> are
> > > > > asking a
> > > > > > > > relative simple request: Can we please increase the community
> > > > > adoption
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this
> > > > > > non-technical
> > > > > > > > once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis ==
> > > > > ActiveMQ
> > > > > > 6.
> > > > > > > > IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing
> in
> > > > > HornetQ
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > why it was named Artemis to begin with.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed
> > upon
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your
> cake
> > > and
> > > > > eat
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > too.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Sent from:
> > > > > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404
> > > > > > .
> > > > > > > html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > perl -e 'print
> > > > >
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> > > );'
> > > > >
> > > > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> > > > > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > perl -e 'print
> > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
> > >
> > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> > > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
>
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>]

John, as I stated, I did not put any restrictions on the page. None of us
has any special access to the wiki page, we just log in to the wiki and
click the 'Edit' button. Are you not able to see the page? Are able to see
the page but not the 'Edit' button?

Bruce

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:22 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:

> Can you check if "johndament" has edit access?
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:07 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I did not restrict the page. In looking at the page restrictions, there
> are
> > none so anyone with credentials for the wiki should be able to view and
> > edit it.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:56 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:48 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > According to the ASF Voting page (
> > > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html):
> > > >
> > > > 'Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> > > > unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
> > than
> > > > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> regardless
> > > of
> > > > the number of votes in each category. '
> > > >
> > > > However, given that there are some binding -1s, I believe it is in
> > > > everyone's best interest to stop this vote and prepare a plan to move
> > > > forward as a group.
> > > >
> > > > In the interest of moving forward as a group, I have created a page
> > > > specifically for the Artemis Roadmap here:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/
> > > ActiveMQ+Artemis+Roadmap
> > > >
> > > > I encourage everyone to contribute to this page and discuss it in a
> > > > separate discussion thread on the dev@activemq list. I will start a
> > > > separate discussion for this topic now.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Can you please grant committers write access to this page?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Bruce
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> > > > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > @Justin,
> > > > >
> > > > > In terms of consensus it depends on what it is with Apache.  I know
> > for
> > > > > releases you just need a majority vote but for code modifications a
> > -1
> > > > by a
> > > > > PMC member is a veto.
> > > > >
> > > > > In this case I'm not entirely sure but I think the -1 votes in this
> > > > thread
> > > > > would be considered a veto unless they are changed.
> > > > >
> > > > > See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> > > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > @Jeff:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and future.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and
> release
> > > > > > whenever it was ready.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what would
> > > drive
> > > > > > people using it.. etc.. etc..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no adoption,
> > and
> > > > > > there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at
> > the
> > > > > > website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't
> help
> > > at
> > > > > > all!!!).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on
> > the
> > > > > > website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion
> before
> > > > > > starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got
> into
> > > > > > here).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these
> > agenda
> > > > > > items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
> > > > > > answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
> > > > > > used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view
> > on
> > > > > > where we will get.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis
> > more
> > > > > > prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <jg...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > There is a vote that is more and more looking like an
> underlying
> > > > agenda
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by
> > companies.
> > > > > > Sorry,
> > > > > > > just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back the
> > > > > > > knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.
> That's a
> > > > shame
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > I really hope that is not the direction this is going.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because
> > > some
> > > > > > folks
> > > > > > > are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its
> > > > > technical
> > > > > > > because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over
> > > from
> > > > > > AMQ5.
> > > > > > > I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic -
> > > > whatever)
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6
> > > means
> > > > > its
> > > > > > > the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with
> > the
> > > > > old.
> > > > > > > Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on
> > > > numerical
> > > > > > > versions for a majority of software and this one in particular
> -
> > > > that's
> > > > > > > technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is
> > both
> > > PR
> > > > > > *and*
> > > > > > > technical.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis
> > > > ultimately
> > > > > > > becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and
> has
> > > > > > reasonable
> > > > > > > compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like
> some
> > > > basic
> > > > > > > stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are
> running
> > > > AMQ5,
> > > > > > > which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast
> > majority
> > > > of
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > community.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very
> > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more
> in
> > > line
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why
> > is
> > > > that
> > > > > > > viewed as so unreasonable?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about
> > > naming
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an
> > agenda
> > > > and
> > > > > > > there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w
> > > > > > hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/
> > > > > > artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a
> > > > > numbering
> > > > > > > with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear
> > > people
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?
> There
> > is
> > > > no
> > > > > > > ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to
> > > JBoss
> > > > > AMQ
> > > > > > 7.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing
> to
> > > do
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with
> > > vendors
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of
> > the
> > > > day
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do
> > with
> > > > > this.
> > > > > > > But the cross pollination of employees and committers
> > unfortunately
> > > > > > clouds
> > > > > > > this immensely.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all
> > nay-sayers
> > > > > here
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are
> > > > asking a
> > > > > > > relative simple request: Can we please increase the community
> > > > adoption
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this
> > > > > non-technical
> > > > > > > once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis ==
> > > > ActiveMQ
> > > > > 6.
> > > > > > > IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in
> > > > HornetQ
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > why it was named Artemis to begin with.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed
> upon
> > > > when
> > > > > > > bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake
> > and
> > > > eat
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Sent from:
> > > > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404
> > > > > .
> > > > > > html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > perl -e 'print
> > > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> > );'
> > > >
> > > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> > > > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > perl -e 'print
> > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
> >
> > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
> >
>



-- 
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'

ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

["John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>]

Can you check if "johndament" has edit access?

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:07 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I did not restrict the page. In looking at the page restrictions, there are
> none so anyone with credentials for the wiki should be able to view and
> edit it.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:56 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:48 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > According to the ASF Voting page (
> > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html):
> > >
> > > 'Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> > > unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
> than
> > > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless
> > of
> > > the number of votes in each category. '
> > >
> > > However, given that there are some binding -1s, I believe it is in
> > > everyone's best interest to stop this vote and prepare a plan to move
> > > forward as a group.
> > >
> > > In the interest of moving forward as a group, I have created a page
> > > specifically for the Artemis Roadmap here:
> > >
> > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/
> > ActiveMQ+Artemis+Roadmap
> > >
> > > I encourage everyone to contribute to this page and discuss it in a
> > > separate discussion thread on the dev@activemq list. I will start a
> > > separate discussion for this topic now.
> > >
> >
> > Can you please grant committers write access to this page?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Bruce
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> > > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > @Justin,
> > > >
> > > > In terms of consensus it depends on what it is with Apache.  I know
> for
> > > > releases you just need a majority vote but for code modifications a
> -1
> > > by a
> > > > PMC member is a veto.
> > > >
> > > > In this case I'm not entirely sure but I think the -1 votes in this
> > > thread
> > > > would be considered a veto unless they are changed.
> > > >
> > > > See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > @Jeff:
> > > > >
> > > > > All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and future.
> > > > >
> > > > > We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and release
> > > > > whenever it was ready.
> > > > >
> > > > > We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what would
> > drive
> > > > > people using it.. etc.. etc..
> > > > >
> > > > > Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no adoption,
> and
> > > > > there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at
> the
> > > > > website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help
> > at
> > > > > all!!!).
> > > > >
> > > > > If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on
> the
> > > > > website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before
> > > > > starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into
> > > > > here).
> > > > >
> > > > > Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these
> agenda
> > > > > items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
> > > > > answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
> > > > > used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view
> on
> > > > > where we will get.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis
> more
> > > > > prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <jg...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying
> > > agenda
> > > > > as
> > > > > > you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by
> companies.
> > > > > Sorry,
> > > > > > just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back the
> > > > > > knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.  That's a
> > > shame
> > > > > and
> > > > > > I really hope that is not the direction this is going.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because
> > some
> > > > > folks
> > > > > > are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its
> > > > technical
> > > > > > because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over
> > from
> > > > > AMQ5.
> > > > > > I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic -
> > > whatever)
> > > > is
> > > > > > being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6
> > means
> > > > its
> > > > > > the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with
> the
> > > > old.
> > > > > > Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on
> > > numerical
> > > > > > versions for a majority of software and this one in particular -
> > > that's
> > > > > > technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is
> both
> > PR
> > > > > *and*
> > > > > > technical.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis
> > > ultimately
> > > > > > becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has
> > > > > reasonable
> > > > > > compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some
> > > basic
> > > > > > stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running
> > > AMQ5,
> > > > > > which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast
> majority
> > > of
> > > > > our
> > > > > > community.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very
> > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in
> > line
> > > > so
> > > > > > that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why
> is
> > > that
> > > > > > viewed as so unreasonable?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about
> > naming
> > > > and
> > > > > > vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an
> agenda
> > > and
> > > > > > there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w
> > > > > hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/
> > > > > artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a
> > > > numbering
> > > > > > with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear
> > people
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There
> is
> > > no
> > > > > > ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to
> > JBoss
> > > > AMQ
> > > > > 7.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to
> > do
> > > > with
> > > > > > vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with
> > vendors
> > > > and
> > > > > > this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of
> the
> > > day
> > > > > and
> > > > > > in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do
> with
> > > > this.
> > > > > > But the cross pollination of employees and committers
> unfortunately
> > > > > clouds
> > > > > > this immensely.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all
> nay-sayers
> > > > here
> > > > > are
> > > > > > ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are
> > > asking a
> > > > > > relative simple request: Can we please increase the community
> > > adoption
> > > > > and
> > > > > > get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this
> > > > non-technical
> > > > > > once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis ==
> > > ActiveMQ
> > > > 6.
> > > > > > IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in
> > > HornetQ
> > > > > and
> > > > > > why it was named Artemis to begin with.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon
> > > when
> > > > > > bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake
> and
> > > eat
> > > > > it
> > > > > > too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Sent from:
> > > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404
> > > > .
> > > > > html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > perl -e 'print
> > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
> > >
> > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> > > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
>
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>]

I did not restrict the page. In looking at the page restrictions, there are
none so anyone with credentials for the wiki should be able to view and
edit it.

Bruce

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:56 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:48 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > According to the ASF Voting page (
> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html):
> >
> > 'Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> > unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless
> of
> > the number of votes in each category. '
> >
> > However, given that there are some binding -1s, I believe it is in
> > everyone's best interest to stop this vote and prepare a plan to move
> > forward as a group.
> >
> > In the interest of moving forward as a group, I have created a page
> > specifically for the Artemis Roadmap here:
> >
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/
> ActiveMQ+Artemis+Roadmap
> >
> > I encourage everyone to contribute to this page and discuss it in a
> > separate discussion thread on the dev@activemq list. I will start a
> > separate discussion for this topic now.
> >
>
> Can you please grant committers write access to this page?
>
>
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > @Justin,
> > >
> > > In terms of consensus it depends on what it is with Apache.  I know for
> > > releases you just need a majority vote but for code modifications a -1
> > by a
> > > PMC member is a veto.
> > >
> > > In this case I'm not entirely sure but I think the -1 votes in this
> > thread
> > > would be considered a veto unless they are changed.
> > >
> > > See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > @Jeff:
> > > >
> > > > All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and future.
> > > >
> > > > We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and release
> > > > whenever it was ready.
> > > >
> > > > We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what would
> drive
> > > > people using it.. etc.. etc..
> > > >
> > > > Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no adoption, and
> > > > there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at the
> > > > website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help
> at
> > > > all!!!).
> > > >
> > > > If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on the
> > > > website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before
> > > > starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into
> > > > here).
> > > >
> > > > Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these agenda
> > > > items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
> > > > answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
> > > > used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view on
> > > > where we will get.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis more
> > > > prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <jg...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying
> > agenda
> > > > as
> > > > > you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies.
> > > > Sorry,
> > > > > just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back the
> > > > > knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.  That's a
> > shame
> > > > and
> > > > > I really hope that is not the direction this is going.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because
> some
> > > > folks
> > > > > are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its
> > > technical
> > > > > because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over
> from
> > > > AMQ5.
> > > > > I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic -
> > whatever)
> > > is
> > > > > being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6
> means
> > > its
> > > > > the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the
> > > old.
> > > > > Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on
> > numerical
> > > > > versions for a majority of software and this one in particular -
> > that's
> > > > > technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is both
> PR
> > > > *and*
> > > > > technical.
> > > > >
> > > > > My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis
> > ultimately
> > > > > becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has
> > > > reasonable
> > > > > compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some
> > basic
> > > > > stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running
> > AMQ5,
> > > > > which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority
> > of
> > > > our
> > > > > community.
> > > > >
> > > > > The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very
> > > > reasonable.
> > > > > Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in
> line
> > > so
> > > > > that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why is
> > that
> > > > > viewed as so unreasonable?
> > > > >
> > > > > I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about
> naming
> > > and
> > > > > vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an agenda
> > and
> > > > > there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w
> > > > hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
> > > > >
> > > > > Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/
> > > > artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a
> > > numbering
> > > > > with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear
> people
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There is
> > no
> > > > > ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to
> JBoss
> > > AMQ
> > > > 7.
> > > > >
> > > > > So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to
> do
> > > with
> > > > > vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with
> vendors
> > > and
> > > > > this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of the
> > day
> > > > and
> > > > > in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with
> > > this.
> > > > > But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately
> > > > clouds
> > > > > this immensely.
> > > > >
> > > > > So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers
> > > here
> > > > are
> > > > > ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are
> > asking a
> > > > > relative simple request: Can we please increase the community
> > adoption
> > > > and
> > > > > get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this
> > > non-technical
> > > > > once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis ==
> > ActiveMQ
> > > 6.
> > > > > IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in
> > HornetQ
> > > > and
> > > > > why it was named Artemis to begin with.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon
> > when
> > > > > bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and
> > eat
> > > > it
> > > > > too.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Sent from:
> > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404
> > > .
> > > > html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > perl -e 'print
> > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
> >
> > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
> >
>



-- 
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'

ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

["John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>]

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:48 PM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:

> According to the ASF Voting page (
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html):
>
> 'Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless of
> the number of votes in each category. '
>
> However, given that there are some binding -1s, I believe it is in
> everyone's best interest to stop this vote and prepare a plan to move
> forward as a group.
>
> In the interest of moving forward as a group, I have created a page
> specifically for the Artemis Roadmap here:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/ActiveMQ+Artemis+Roadmap
>
> I encourage everyone to contribute to this page and discuss it in a
> separate discussion thread on the dev@activemq list. I will start a
> separate discussion for this topic now.
>

Can you please grant committers write access to this page?


>
> Bruce
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > @Justin,
> >
> > In terms of consensus it depends on what it is with Apache.  I know for
> > releases you just need a majority vote but for code modifications a -1
> by a
> > PMC member is a veto.
> >
> > In this case I'm not entirely sure but I think the -1 votes in this
> thread
> > would be considered a veto unless they are changed.
> >
> > See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > @Jeff:
> > >
> > > All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and future.
> > >
> > > We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and release
> > > whenever it was ready.
> > >
> > > We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what would drive
> > > people using it.. etc.. etc..
> > >
> > > Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no adoption, and
> > > there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at the
> > > website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help at
> > > all!!!).
> > >
> > > If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on the
> > > website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before
> > > starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into
> > > here).
> > >
> > > Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these agenda
> > > items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
> > > answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
> > > used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view on
> > > where we will get.
> > >
> > >
> > > So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis more
> > > prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <jg...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying
> agenda
> > > as
> > > > you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies.
> > > Sorry,
> > > > just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back the
> > > > knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.  That's a
> shame
> > > and
> > > > I really hope that is not the direction this is going.
> > > >
> > > > This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because some
> > > folks
> > > > are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its
> > technical
> > > > because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from
> > > AMQ5.
> > > > I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic -
> whatever)
> > is
> > > > being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means
> > its
> > > > the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the
> > old.
> > > > Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on
> numerical
> > > > versions for a majority of software and this one in particular -
> that's
> > > > technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is both PR
> > > *and*
> > > > technical.
> > > >
> > > > My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis
> ultimately
> > > > becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has
> > > reasonable
> > > > compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some
> basic
> > > > stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running
> AMQ5,
> > > > which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority
> of
> > > our
> > > > community.
> > > >
> > > > The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very
> > > reasonable.
> > > > Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line
> > so
> > > > that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why is
> that
> > > > viewed as so unreasonable?
> > > >
> > > > I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming
> > and
> > > > vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an agenda
> and
> > > > there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
> > > >
> > > > https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w
> > > hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
> > > >
> > > > Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
> > > >
> > > > https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/
> > > artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
> > > >
> > > > Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a
> > numbering
> > > > with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear people
> in
> > > the
> > > > community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There is
> no
> > > > ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss
> > AMQ
> > > 7.
> > > >
> > > > So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do
> > with
> > > > vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with vendors
> > and
> > > > this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of the
> day
> > > and
> > > > in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with
> > this.
> > > > But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately
> > > clouds
> > > > this immensely.
> > > >
> > > > So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers
> > here
> > > are
> > > > ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are
> asking a
> > > > relative simple request: Can we please increase the community
> adoption
> > > and
> > > > get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this
> > non-technical
> > > > once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis ==
> ActiveMQ
> > 6.
> > > > IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in
> HornetQ
> > > and
> > > > why it was named Artemis to begin with.
> > > >
> > > > Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon
> when
> > > > bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and
> eat
> > > it
> > > > too.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sent from:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404
> > .
> > > html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
>
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>]

+1 to 'Agree that the goal should be to work as a community to make 
Artemis become ActiveMQ 6'


On 12/6/17 2:48 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
> According to the ASF Voting page (
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html):
>
> 'Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless of
> the number of votes in each category. '
>
> However, given that there are some binding -1s, I believe it is in
> everyone's best interest to stop this vote and prepare a plan to move
> forward as a group.
>
> In the interest of moving forward as a group, I have created a page
> specifically for the Artemis Roadmap here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/ActiveMQ+Artemis+Roadmap
>
> I encourage everyone to contribute to this page and discuss it in a
> separate discussion thread on the dev@activemq list. I will start a
> separate discussion for this topic now.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> @Justin,
>>
>> In terms of consensus it depends on what it is with Apache.  I know for
>> releases you just need a majority vote but for code modifications a -1 by a
>> PMC member is a veto.
>>
>> In this case I'm not entirely sure but I think the -1 votes in this thread
>> would be considered a veto unless they are changed.
>>
>> See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> @Jeff:
>>>
>>> All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and future.
>>>
>>> We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and release
>>> whenever it was ready.
>>>
>>> We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what would drive
>>> people using it.. etc.. etc..
>>>
>>> Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no adoption, and
>>> there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at the
>>> website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help at
>>> all!!!).
>>>
>>> If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on the
>>> website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before
>>> starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into
>>> here).
>>>
>>> Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these agenda
>>> items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
>>> answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
>>> used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view on
>>> where we will get.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis more
>>> prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying agenda
>>> as
>>>> you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies.
>>> Sorry,
>>>> just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back the
>>>> knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.  That's a shame
>>> and
>>>> I really hope that is not the direction this is going.
>>>>
>>>> This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because some
>>> folks
>>>> are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its
>> technical
>>>> because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from
>>> AMQ5.
>>>> I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic - whatever)
>> is
>>>> being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means
>> its
>>>> the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the
>> old.
>>>> Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on numerical
>>>> versions for a majority of software and this one in particular - that's
>>>> technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is both PR
>>> *and*
>>>> technical.
>>>>
>>>> My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis ultimately
>>>> becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has
>>> reasonable
>>>> compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some basic
>>>> stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running AMQ5,
>>>> which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority of
>>> our
>>>> community.
>>>>
>>>> The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very
>>> reasonable.
>>>> Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line
>> so
>>>> that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why is that
>>>> viewed as so unreasonable?
>>>>
>>>> I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming
>> and
>>>> vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an agenda and
>>>> there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
>>>>
>>>> https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w
>>> hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
>>>> Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
>>>>
>>>> https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/
>>> artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
>>>> Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a
>> numbering
>>>> with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear people in
>>> the
>>>> community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There is no
>>>> ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss
>> AMQ
>>> 7.
>>>> So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do
>> with
>>>> vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with vendors
>> and
>>>> this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of the day
>>> and
>>>> in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with
>> this.
>>>> But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately
>>> clouds
>>>> this immensely.
>>>>
>>>> So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers
>> here
>>> are
>>>> ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are asking a
>>>> relative simple request: Can we please increase the community adoption
>>> and
>>>> get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this
>> non-technical
>>>> once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis == ActiveMQ
>> 6.
>>>> IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in HornetQ
>>> and
>>>> why it was named Artemis to begin with.
>>>>
>>>> Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon when
>>>> bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and eat
>>> it
>>>> too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404
>> .
>>> html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>]

According to the ASF Voting page (
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html):

'Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless of
the number of votes in each category. '

However, given that there are some binding -1s, I believe it is in
everyone's best interest to stop this vote and prepare a plan to move
forward as a group.

In the interest of moving forward as a group, I have created a page
specifically for the Artemis Roadmap here:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/ActiveMQ+Artemis+Roadmap

I encourage everyone to contribute to this page and discuss it in a
separate discussion thread on the dev@activemq list. I will start a
separate discussion for this topic now.

Bruce

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:

> @Justin,
>
> In terms of consensus it depends on what it is with Apache.  I know for
> releases you just need a majority vote but for code modifications a -1 by a
> PMC member is a veto.
>
> In this case I'm not entirely sure but I think the -1 votes in this thread
> would be considered a veto unless they are changed.
>
> See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > @Jeff:
> >
> > All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and future.
> >
> > We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and release
> > whenever it was ready.
> >
> > We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what would drive
> > people using it.. etc.. etc..
> >
> > Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no adoption, and
> > there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at the
> > website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help at
> > all!!!).
> >
> > If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on the
> > website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before
> > starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into
> > here).
> >
> > Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these agenda
> > items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
> > answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
> > used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view on
> > where we will get.
> >
> >
> > So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis more
> > prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying agenda
> > as
> > > you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies.
> > Sorry,
> > > just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back the
> > > knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.  That's a shame
> > and
> > > I really hope that is not the direction this is going.
> > >
> > > This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because some
> > folks
> > > are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its
> technical
> > > because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from
> > AMQ5.
> > > I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic - whatever)
> is
> > > being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means
> its
> > > the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the
> old.
> > > Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on numerical
> > > versions for a majority of software and this one in particular - that's
> > > technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is both PR
> > *and*
> > > technical.
> > >
> > > My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis ultimately
> > > becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has
> > reasonable
> > > compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some basic
> > > stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running AMQ5,
> > > which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority of
> > our
> > > community.
> > >
> > > The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very
> > reasonable.
> > > Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line
> so
> > > that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why is that
> > > viewed as so unreasonable?
> > >
> > > I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming
> and
> > > vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an agenda and
> > > there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
> > >
> > > https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w
> > hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
> > >
> > > Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
> > >
> > > https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/
> > artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
> > >
> > > Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a
> numbering
> > > with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear people in
> > the
> > > community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There is no
> > > ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss
> AMQ
> > 7.
> > >
> > > So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do
> with
> > > vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with vendors
> and
> > > this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of the day
> > and
> > > in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with
> this.
> > > But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately
> > clouds
> > > this immensely.
> > >
> > > So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers
> here
> > are
> > > ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are asking a
> > > relative simple request: Can we please increase the community adoption
> > and
> > > get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this
> non-technical
> > > once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis == ActiveMQ
> 6.
> > > IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in HornetQ
> > and
> > > why it was named Artemis to begin with.
> > >
> > > Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon when
> > > bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and eat
> > it
> > > too.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404
> .
> > html
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
>



-- 
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'

ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[jgenender <jg...@apache.org>]

artnaseef wrote
> Please don't get too discouraged.  My vote personally was a request to
> slow
> down and discuss.  I'm just not at a point where I'm ready for "ActiveMQ
> Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6".
> 
> We have this cycle of communication in which a vote goes out and generates
> a
> ton of discussion (often heated).  Then we go quiet.  Months or years
> pass,
> and then we do it again.
> 
> Let's change that!  We are all passionate about messaging and there's a
> ton
> of great knowledge here.
> 
> I look forward to Bruce working on a roadmap, and providing input on the
> same.  Thank you Bruce.  (Please correct me if I read it wrong).

+1000!

Well said Art!



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[artnaseef <ar...@amlinv.com>]

Please don't get too discouraged.  My vote personally was a request to slow
down and discuss.  I'm just not at a point where I'm ready for "ActiveMQ
Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6".

We have this cycle of communication in which a vote goes out and generates a
ton of discussion (often heated).  Then we go quiet.  Months or years pass,
and then we do it again.

Let's change that!  We are all passionate about messaging and there's a ton
of great knowledge here.

I look forward to Bruce working on a roadmap, and providing input on the
same.  Thank you Bruce.  (Please correct me if I read it wrong).




--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[jgenender <jg...@apache.org>]

+1 Bruce... thank you.

I wish we could lock threads... like in forums...

Lets puhlease puhlease move on... this is just getting tiring.  The personal
attacks have to stop.



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>]

I agree. I have not and will not start any attacks of that sort. 
However, I must respond and defend anything inbound in a public forum.

On 12/7/17 9:49 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
> I'm sorry but I need to jump in here. The rhetoric in this discussion is
> not only unnecessary but it is also highly unproductive. Instead of
> resorting to petty disagreements, let's stop responding to this thread and
> find a more productive topic on which to focus your energy.
>
> Knock it off and go write some code.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jeff-   Lol.. whatever and you have never partnered with Red Hat?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/6/17 5:43 PM, jgenender wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sorry... just when we move forward, we take 2 steps back.
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt Pavlovich-2 wrote
>>>
>>>> I agree. I don't work for Red Hat either, but we do a ton of ActiveMQ
>>>> work and have products that support ActiveMQ. Artemis looks to be the
>>>> future and working to align the community to that end is a good thing
>>>> imo.
>>>>
>>> No... you don't work for Red Hat, but a solid business partner for sure!
>>> No
>>> connections!
>>>
>>> https://mediadriver.com/red-hat/
>>>
>>> Come on guys.... lets stop the games... time to move on, no?  This is
>>> getting kind of out of hand... don't you agree?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.
>>> html
>>>
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>]

I'm sorry but I need to jump in here. The rhetoric in this discussion is
not only unnecessary but it is also highly unproductive. Instead of
resorting to petty disagreements, let's stop responding to this thread and
find a more productive topic on which to focus your energy.

Knock it off and go write some code.

Bruce

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jeff-   Lol.. whatever and you have never partnered with Red Hat?
>
>
>
> On 12/6/17 5:43 PM, jgenender wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry... just when we move forward, we take 2 steps back.
>>
>>
>> Matt Pavlovich-2 wrote
>>
>>> I agree. I don't work for Red Hat either, but we do a ton of ActiveMQ
>>> work and have products that support ActiveMQ. Artemis looks to be the
>>> future and working to align the community to that end is a good thing
>>> imo.
>>>
>> No... you don't work for Red Hat, but a solid business partner for sure!
>> No
>> connections!
>>
>> https://mediadriver.com/red-hat/
>>
>> Come on guys.... lets stop the games... time to move on, no?  This is
>> getting kind of out of hand... don't you agree?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.
>> html
>>
>
>


-- 
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'

ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>]

Jeff-   Lol.. whatever and you have never partnered with Red Hat?


On 12/6/17 5:43 PM, jgenender wrote:
> I'm sorry... just when we move forward, we take 2 steps back.
>
>
> Matt Pavlovich-2 wrote
>> I agree. I don't work for Red Hat either, but we do a ton of ActiveMQ
>> work and have products that support ActiveMQ. Artemis looks to be the
>> future and working to align the community to that end is a good thing imo.
> No... you don't work for Red Hat, but a solid business partner for sure!  No
> connections!
>
> https://mediadriver.com/red-hat/
>
> Come on guys.... lets stop the games... time to move on, no?  This is
> getting kind of out of hand... don't you agree?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[jgenender <jg...@apache.org>]

I'm sorry... just when we move forward, we take 2 steps back.


Matt Pavlovich-2 wrote
> I agree. I don't work for Red Hat either, but we do a ton of ActiveMQ 
> work and have products that support ActiveMQ. Artemis looks to be the 
> future and working to align the community to that end is a good thing imo.

No... you don't work for Red Hat, but a solid business partner for sure!  No
connections!

https://mediadriver.com/red-hat/

Come on guys.... lets stop the games... time to move on, no?  This is
getting kind of out of hand... don't you agree?







--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>]

Some people are capable of working towards a goal without a vote.

Back in the day hackers would get together get some beers and with a 
"wouldn't it be f* awesome if..." in mind would put something together 
quickly, talk with unfakeable passion about the stuff and help other 
geeks be successful with it.

Now it's about PR and visions.

Oh well...
Hadrian


On 12/06/2017 05:53 PM, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> I agree. I don't work for Red Hat either, but we do a ton of ActiveMQ 
> work and have products that support ActiveMQ. Artemis looks to be the 
> future and working to align the community to that end is a good thing imo.
> 
>   +1 vote for the 'let's work to make it ActiveMQ 6'
> 
> 
> On 12/6/17 3:45 PM, Michael André Pearce wrote:
>> I think the votes are aligned with Artemis.
>>
>> I do not work for RedHat. To have a broad brush statement like that 
>> everyone who voted +1 must work for the same company, please don’t 
>> tarnish my vote with the same brush.
>>
>> I work for a company that uses ActiveMQ as one of its message brokers 
>> and see it’s future in Artemis.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On 6 Dec 2017, at 21:34, jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> clebertsuconic wrote
>>>>> Lets make this project work in harmony for everyone so we can work
>>>>> towards
>>>>> consensus for what is AMQ6 and when.
>>>> Harmony and Unanimous consensus is something pretty rare in humanity.
>>> Thats a pretty sad view.  Nobody said unanimous.  Harmony is 
>>> certainly not
>>> that hard.  But where I think the elephant is where those votes are 
>>> aligned.
>>> That should be a much bigger concern.
>>>
>>>
>>> clebertsuconic wrote
>>>> If you help promote Artemis, work towards the roadmap.. and
>>>> everything.. there's still the question:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1 year, 2 years, 3 years from now... aren't we going to be back to this
>>>> square?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just want to know the terms ahead of time.. is this fixable?  I
>>>> believe one year from now.. we  will -1s from usually -1s people,  no
>>>> matter how complete we are on the Roadmap.
>>> Who can answer that?  I think minimally it needs to be easily 
>>> migrated.  At
>>> this stage it certainly cannot... at least not from my experience.  We
>>> cannot turn our back on the majority of this community who just so 
>>> happens
>>> to use ActiveMQ 5.
>>>
>>> Its also kind of sad that you have relinquished to thinking -1s are -1s
>>> forever.  I believe I told you point blank I'm all for Artemis being 
>>> AMQ6...
>>> "When its ready".  What is ready?  It was stated many times in this 
>>> thread.
>>> I believe the -1s in this thread all said the same thing.  Get more 
>>> people
>>> using it and have a good compatible migration path so we can be 
>>> consistent
>>> with all of our major version releases.
>>>
>>> Artemis is getting what it wants.  More prominence and support from 
>>> the AMQ
>>> project and a commitment to migration path.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Sent from: 
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
> 

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>]

I agree. I don't work for Red Hat either, but we do a ton of ActiveMQ 
work and have products that support ActiveMQ. Artemis looks to be the 
future and working to align the community to that end is a good thing imo.

  +1 vote for the 'let's work to make it ActiveMQ 6'


On 12/6/17 3:45 PM, Michael André Pearce wrote:
> I think the votes are aligned with Artemis.
>
> I do not work for RedHat. To have a broad brush statement like that everyone who voted +1 must work for the same company, please don’t tarnish my vote with the same brush.
>
> I work for a company that uses ActiveMQ as one of its message brokers and see it’s future in Artemis.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 6 Dec 2017, at 21:34, jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> clebertsuconic wrote
>>>> Lets make this project work in harmony for everyone so we can work
>>>> towards
>>>> consensus for what is AMQ6 and when.
>>> Harmony and Unanimous consensus is something pretty rare in humanity.
>> Thats a pretty sad view.  Nobody said unanimous.  Harmony is certainly not
>> that hard.  But where I think the elephant is where those votes are aligned.
>> That should be a much bigger concern.
>>
>>
>> clebertsuconic wrote
>>> If you help promote Artemis, work towards the roadmap.. and
>>> everything.. there's still the question:
>>>
>>>
>>> 1 year, 2 years, 3 years from now... aren't we going to be back to this
>>> square?
>>>
>>>
>>> I just want to know the terms ahead of time.. is this fixable?  I
>>> believe one year from now.. we  will -1s from usually -1s people,  no
>>> matter how complete we are on the Roadmap.
>> Who can answer that?  I think minimally it needs to be easily migrated.  At
>> this stage it certainly cannot... at least not from my experience.  We
>> cannot turn our back on the majority of this community who just so happens
>> to use ActiveMQ 5.
>>
>> Its also kind of sad that you have relinquished to thinking -1s are -1s
>> forever.  I believe I told you point blank I'm all for Artemis being AMQ6...
>> "When its ready".  What is ready?  It was stated many times in this thread.
>> I believe the -1s in this thread all said the same thing.  Get more people
>> using it and have a good compatible migration path so we can be consistent
>> with all of our major version releases.
>>
>> Artemis is getting what it wants.  More prominence and support from the AMQ
>> project and a commitment to migration path.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Michael André Pearce <mi...@me.com>]

I think the votes are aligned with Artemis.

I do not work for RedHat. To have a broad brush statement like that everyone who voted +1 must work for the same company, please don’t tarnish my vote with the same brush. 

I work for a company that uses ActiveMQ as one of its message brokers and see it’s future in Artemis.







Sent from my iPhone

> On 6 Dec 2017, at 21:34, jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> clebertsuconic wrote
>>> Lets make this project work in harmony for everyone so we can work
>>> towards
>>> consensus for what is AMQ6 and when.
>> 
>> Harmony and Unanimous consensus is something pretty rare in humanity.
> 
> Thats a pretty sad view.  Nobody said unanimous.  Harmony is certainly not
> that hard.  But where I think the elephant is where those votes are aligned. 
> That should be a much bigger concern.
> 
> 
> clebertsuconic wrote
>> If you help promote Artemis, work towards the roadmap.. and
>> everything.. there's still the question:
>> 
>> 
>> 1 year, 2 years, 3 years from now... aren't we going to be back to this
>> square?
>> 
>> 
>> I just want to know the terms ahead of time.. is this fixable?  I
>> believe one year from now.. we  will -1s from usually -1s people,  no
>> matter how complete we are on the Roadmap.
> 
> Who can answer that?  I think minimally it needs to be easily migrated.  At
> this stage it certainly cannot... at least not from my experience.  We
> cannot turn our back on the majority of this community who just so happens
> to use ActiveMQ 5.
> 
> Its also kind of sad that you have relinquished to thinking -1s are -1s
> forever.  I believe I told you point blank I'm all for Artemis being AMQ6...
> "When its ready".  What is ready?  It was stated many times in this thread. 
> I believe the -1s in this thread all said the same thing.  Get more people
> using it and have a good compatible migration path so we can be consistent
> with all of our major version releases.
> 
> Artemis is getting what it wants.  More prominence and support from the AMQ
> project and a commitment to migration path.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>]

Clebert, your goal should not be an ActiveMQ 6. IMHO totally short sighted.

Why not shoot for making Artemis the best messaging system under the 
sun. It won't matter how it's called then. This kind of looks like 
desperation to get adoption via whatever means, screw the consequences 
for others. I am telling you again, we've been here before, we know what 
happened. We learned.

Cheers,
Hadrian


On 12/06/2017 04:40 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> I didn’t mean to be negative or emotional.. sorry it’s being a hard day for me…
> all I want to clarify is if we would need 100% consensus in the future
> 
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:34 PM, jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> clebertsuconic wrote
>>>> Lets make this project work in harmony for everyone so we can work
>>>> towards
>>>> consensus for what is AMQ6 and when.
>>>
>>> Harmony and Unanimous consensus is something pretty rare in humanity.
>>
>> Thats a pretty sad view.  Nobody said unanimous.  Harmony is certainly not
>> that hard.  But where I think the elephant is where those votes are aligned.
>> That should be a much bigger concern.
>>
>>
>> clebertsuconic wrote
>>> If you help promote Artemis, work towards the roadmap.. and
>>> everything.. there's still the question:
>>>
>>>
>>> 1 year, 2 years, 3 years from now... aren't we going to be back to this
>>> square?
>>>
>>>
>>> I just want to know the terms ahead of time.. is this fixable?  I
>>> believe one year from now.. we  will -1s from usually -1s people,  no
>>> matter how complete we are on the Roadmap.
>>
>> Who can answer that?  I think minimally it needs to be easily migrated.  At
>> this stage it certainly cannot... at least not from my experience.  We
>> cannot turn our back on the majority of this community who just so happens
>> to use ActiveMQ 5.
>>
>> Its also kind of sad that you have relinquished to thinking -1s are -1s
>> forever.  I believe I told you point blank I'm all for Artemis being AMQ6...
>> "When its ready".  What is ready?  It was stated many times in this thread.
>> I believe the -1s in this thread all said the same thing.  Get more people
>> using it and have a good compatible migration path so we can be consistent
>> with all of our major version releases.
>>
>> Artemis is getting what it wants.  More prominence and support from the AMQ
>> project and a commitment to migration path.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
> 
> 
> 

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>]

I didn’t mean to be negative or emotional.. sorry it’s being a hard day for me…
all I want to clarify is if we would need 100% consensus in the future

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:34 PM, jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> clebertsuconic wrote
>>> Lets make this project work in harmony for everyone so we can work
>>> towards
>>> consensus for what is AMQ6 and when.
>>
>> Harmony and Unanimous consensus is something pretty rare in humanity.
>
> Thats a pretty sad view.  Nobody said unanimous.  Harmony is certainly not
> that hard.  But where I think the elephant is where those votes are aligned.
> That should be a much bigger concern.
>
>
> clebertsuconic wrote
>> If you help promote Artemis, work towards the roadmap.. and
>> everything.. there's still the question:
>>
>>
>> 1 year, 2 years, 3 years from now... aren't we going to be back to this
>> square?
>>
>>
>> I just want to know the terms ahead of time.. is this fixable?  I
>> believe one year from now.. we  will -1s from usually -1s people,  no
>> matter how complete we are on the Roadmap.
>
> Who can answer that?  I think minimally it needs to be easily migrated.  At
> this stage it certainly cannot... at least not from my experience.  We
> cannot turn our back on the majority of this community who just so happens
> to use ActiveMQ 5.
>
> Its also kind of sad that you have relinquished to thinking -1s are -1s
> forever.  I believe I told you point blank I'm all for Artemis being AMQ6...
> "When its ready".  What is ready?  It was stated many times in this thread.
> I believe the -1s in this thread all said the same thing.  Get more people
> using it and have a good compatible migration path so we can be consistent
> with all of our major version releases.
>
> Artemis is getting what it wants.  More prominence and support from the AMQ
> project and a commitment to migration path.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[jgenender <jg...@apache.org>]

clebertsuconic wrote
>> Lets make this project work in harmony for everyone so we can work
>> towards
>> consensus for what is AMQ6 and when.
> 
> Harmony and Unanimous consensus is something pretty rare in humanity.

Thats a pretty sad view.  Nobody said unanimous.  Harmony is certainly not
that hard.  But where I think the elephant is where those votes are aligned. 
That should be a much bigger concern.


clebertsuconic wrote
> If you help promote Artemis, work towards the roadmap.. and
> everything.. there's still the question:
> 
> 
> 1 year, 2 years, 3 years from now... aren't we going to be back to this
> square?
> 
> 
> I just want to know the terms ahead of time.. is this fixable?  I
> believe one year from now.. we  will -1s from usually -1s people,  no
> matter how complete we are on the Roadmap.

Who can answer that?  I think minimally it needs to be easily migrated.  At
this stage it certainly cannot... at least not from my experience.  We
cannot turn our back on the majority of this community who just so happens
to use ActiveMQ 5.

Its also kind of sad that you have relinquished to thinking -1s are -1s
forever.  I believe I told you point blank I'm all for Artemis being AMQ6...
"When its ready".  What is ready?  It was stated many times in this thread. 
I believe the -1s in this thread all said the same thing.  Get more people
using it and have a good compatible migration path so we can be consistent
with all of our major version releases.

Artemis is getting what it wants.  More prominence and support from the AMQ
project and a commitment to migration path.








--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>]

> Lets make this project work in harmony for everyone so we can work towards
> consensus for what is AMQ6 and when.

Harmony and Unanimous consensus is something pretty rare in humanity.

If you help promote Artemis, work towards the roadmap.. and
everything.. there's still the question:


1 year, 2 years, 3 years from now... aren't we going to be back to this square?


I just want to know the terms ahead of time.. is this fixable?  I
believe one year from now.. we  will -1s from usually -1s people,  no
matter how complete we are on the Roadmap.

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[jgenender <jg...@apache.org>]

Consensus as I understand it the way it used here at Apache is the way its
defined partially in the dictionary:

"general agreement or concord; harmony."

We don't have that here.  Its pretty far from harmony.

At this stage its somewhat moot and continuing down the path we are going in
this thread as its becoming a bash-fest and flame war.  There is no reason
for that.

I would like to suggest following what Bruce and ultimately Clebert stated. 
Lets get Artemis some more prominence on the main AMQ website and start
working on migration paths etc.  The prominence will help with bringing
adoption and the migration will give folks a path to go down.

Lets make this project work in harmony for everyone so we can work towards
consensus for what is AMQ6 and when.



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Justin Bertram <jb...@redhat.com>]

I see what you're saying, Chris.  My thought here is that consensus is
consensus no matter what, but in some situations a veto can overrule.  For
this particular vote there appears to be consensus with an overruling
veto.  If those are the rules that's fine, but let's not say there isn't
consensus where there actually is consensus.


Justin

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:

> @Justin,
>
> In terms of consensus it depends on what it is with Apache.  I know for
> releases you just need a majority vote but for code modifications a -1 by a
> PMC member is a veto.
>
> In this case I'm not entirely sure but I think the -1 votes in this thread
> would be considered a veto unless they are changed.
>
> See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > @Jeff:
> >
> > All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and future.
> >
> > We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and release
> > whenever it was ready.
> >
> > We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what would drive
> > people using it.. etc.. etc..
> >
> > Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no adoption, and
> > there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at the
> > website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help at
> > all!!!).
> >
> > If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on the
> > website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before
> > starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into
> > here).
> >
> > Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these agenda
> > items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
> > answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
> > used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view on
> > where we will get.
> >
> >
> > So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis more
> > prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying agenda
> > as
> > > you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies.
> > Sorry,
> > > just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back the
> > > knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.  That's a shame
> > and
> > > I really hope that is not the direction this is going.
> > >
> > > This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because some
> > folks
> > > are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its
> technical
> > > because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from
> > AMQ5.
> > > I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic - whatever)
> is
> > > being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means
> its
> > > the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the
> old.
> > > Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on numerical
> > > versions for a majority of software and this one in particular - that's
> > > technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is both PR
> > *and*
> > > technical.
> > >
> > > My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis ultimately
> > > becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has
> > reasonable
> > > compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some basic
> > > stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running AMQ5,
> > > which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority of
> > our
> > > community.
> > >
> > > The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very
> > reasonable.
> > > Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line
> so
> > > that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why is that
> > > viewed as so unreasonable?
> > >
> > > I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming
> and
> > > vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an agenda and
> > > there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
> > >
> > > https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w
> > hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
> > >
> > > Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
> > >
> > > https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/
> > artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
> > >
> > > Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a
> numbering
> > > with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear people in
> > the
> > > community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There is no
> > > ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss
> AMQ
> > 7.
> > >
> > > So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do
> with
> > > vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with vendors
> and
> > > this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of the day
> > and
> > > in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with
> this.
> > > But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately
> > clouds
> > > this immensely.
> > >
> > > So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers
> here
> > are
> > > ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are asking a
> > > relative simple request: Can we please increase the community adoption
> > and
> > > get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this
> non-technical
> > > once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis == ActiveMQ
> 6.
> > > IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in HornetQ
> > and
> > > why it was named Artemis to begin with.
> > >
> > > Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon when
> > > bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and eat
> > it
> > > too.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404
> .
> > html
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>]

@Justin,

In terms of consensus it depends on what it is with Apache.  I know for
releases you just need a majority vote but for code modifications a -1 by a
PMC member is a veto.

In this case I'm not entirely sure but I think the -1 votes in this thread
would be considered a veto unless they are changed.

See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> @Jeff:
>
> All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and future.
>
> We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and release
> whenever it was ready.
>
> We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what would drive
> people using it.. etc.. etc..
>
> Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no adoption, and
> there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at the
> website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help at
> all!!!).
>
> If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on the
> website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before
> starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into
> here).
>
> Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these agenda
> items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
> answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
> used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view on
> where we will get.
>
>
> So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis more
> prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> > There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying agenda
> as
> > you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies.
> Sorry,
> > just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back the
> > knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.  That's a shame
> and
> > I really hope that is not the direction this is going.
> >
> > This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because some
> folks
> > are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its technical
> > because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from
> AMQ5.
> > I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic - whatever) is
> > being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means its
> > the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the old.
> > Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on numerical
> > versions for a majority of software and this one in particular - that's
> > technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is both PR
> *and*
> > technical.
> >
> > My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis ultimately
> > becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has
> reasonable
> > compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some basic
> > stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running AMQ5,
> > which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority of
> our
> > community.
> >
> > The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very
> reasonable.
> > Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line so
> > that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why is that
> > viewed as so unreasonable?
> >
> > I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming and
> > vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an agenda and
> > there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
> >
> > https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w
> hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
> >
> > Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
> >
> > https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/
> artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
> >
> > Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a numbering
> > with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear people in
> the
> > community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There is no
> > ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss AMQ
> 7.
> >
> > So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do with
> > vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with vendors and
> > this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of the day
> and
> > in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with this.
> > But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately
> clouds
> > this immensely.
> >
> > So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers here
> are
> > ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are asking a
> > relative simple request: Can we please increase the community adoption
> and
> > get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this non-technical
> > once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis == ActiveMQ 6.
> > IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in HornetQ
> and
> > why it was named Artemis to begin with.
> >
> > Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon when
> > bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and eat
> it
> > too.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.
> html
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>]

@Jeff:

All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and future.

We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and release
whenever it was ready.

We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what would drive
people using it.. etc.. etc..

Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no adoption, and
there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at the
website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help at
all!!!).

If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on the
website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before
starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into
here).

Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these agenda
items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view on
where we will get.


So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis more
prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?





On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying agenda as
> you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies.  Sorry,
> just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back the
> knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.  That's a shame and
> I really hope that is not the direction this is going.
>
> This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because some folks
> are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its technical
> because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from AMQ5.
> I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic - whatever) is
> being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means its
> the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the old.
> Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on numerical
> versions for a majority of software and this one in particular - that's
> technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is both PR *and*
> technical.
>
> My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis ultimately
> becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has reasonable
> compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some basic
> stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running AMQ5,
> which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority of our
> community.
>
> The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very reasonable.
> Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line so
> that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why is that
> viewed as so unreasonable?
>
> I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming and
> vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an agenda and
> there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
>
> https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-what-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
>
> Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
>
> https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
>
> Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a numbering
> with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear people in the
> community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There is no
> ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss AMQ 7.
>
> So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do with
> vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with vendors and
> this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of the day and
> in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with this.
> But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately clouds
> this immensely.
>
> So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers here are
> ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are asking a
> relative simple request: Can we please increase the community adoption and
> get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this non-technical
> once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis == ActiveMQ 6.
> IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in HornetQ and
> why it was named Artemis to begin with.
>
> Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon when
> bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and eat it
> too.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[jgenender <jg...@apache.org>]

There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying agenda as
you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies.  Sorry,
just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back the
knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.  That's a shame and
I really hope that is not the direction this is going.

This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because some folks
are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its technical
because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from AMQ5. 
I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic - whatever) is
being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means its
the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the old. 
Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on numerical
versions for a majority of software and this one in particular - that's
technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is both PR *and*
technical.

My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis ultimately
becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has reasonable
compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some basic
stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running AMQ5,
which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority of our
community.

The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very reasonable. 
Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line so
that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why is that
viewed as so unreasonable?

I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming and
vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an agenda and
there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:

https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-what-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/

Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:

https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/

Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a numbering
with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear people in the
community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There is no
ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss AMQ 7.

So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do with
vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with vendors and
this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of the day and
in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with this. 
But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately clouds
this immensely.

So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers here are
ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are asking a
relative simple request: Can we please increase the community adoption and
get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this non-technical
once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis == ActiveMQ 6. 
IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in HornetQ and
why it was named Artemis to begin with.

Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon when
bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and eat it
too.



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>]

Hadrian,
inline

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 15:56 Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gary,
>
> That is precisely what folks vote -1 against.

That is what I wish to clarify but I presume you speak for your self here.


> I hope you are not
> implying that the -1s should not be counted because you believe the -1s
> where for a different reason.
>
your hope has come true, there is no such implication.


> Surely you must remember the same issue being raised and a vote called
> some 2 years ago if my memory serves me well (I can look it up if
> necessary). Exactly same vote, exactly same statement of intent. You
> know how that went.

What changed to start it all over again?
>
> Artemis has got OpenWire support, a plugin framework and a console.
Features that mirror 5.x.
There is a bunch of artemis activity on the user list and the the dev list.
Apollo work has stoped. The activemq website still needs love and the
activemq project clearly needs a future direction beyond 5.x


Can we agree that this vote is a PR/marketing play, not technology?

I agree marketing has a part in this, marketing the ActiveMQ brand as a
live project and reflecting the good work that the artemis devs are doing.
And sorting out or website has a huge part to play in that.
But I cannot agree that this is not about technology. As some one who has
intimate knowledge of 5.x I can categorically say that it is not the basis
for future development. It does what it does really well but making change
to that code base and not breaking existing users is very difficult. In a
way it is a victim of its own success, but a victim none the less.


> This
> is not a vote for a controversial feature people can't agree on, nor on
> accepting an external contribution, nor a release vote. What is it?
>
> It is about getting some consensus on a future. Nearly 3years have passed
since we accepted the hornetq donation in good faith. Contributions to 5.x
have dwindled and contributions to artemis have grown.


> Some see Artemis as the future of ActiveMQ. Other gray beards see it as
> a project that needs to get more adoption an prove itself before it's
> clear that it can be the evolution of the current 5.x version that
> serves the market very well (proven yet again by AWS). No consensus yet.
>
> We cannot predict the future, we can only make it happen and I see the
energy around artemis provides a future path. The alternative is more
stagnation.

/gary.


> On 12/06/2017 10:45 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially
> state
> >> the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
> >> ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
> >> concerns.
> >
> >
> > This was also my understanding and what I voted for.
> > Maybe the intent of the vote needs to be clarified.
> >
> > is this what folks voted against?
> >
> > gary.
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>]

This is why I suggested using explicit statements to clarify exactly what
is being voted on.

Bruce

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gary,
>
> That is precisely what folks vote -1 against. I hope you are not implying
> that the -1s should not be counted because you believe the -1s where for a
> different reason.
>
> Surely you must remember the same issue being raised and a vote called
> some 2 years ago if my memory serves me well (I can look it up if
> necessary). Exactly same vote, exactly same statement of intent. You know
> how that went. What changed to start it all over again?
>
> Can we agree that this vote is a PR/marketing play, not technology? This
> is not a vote for a controversial feature people can't agree on, nor on
> accepting an external contribution, nor a release vote. What is it?
>
> Some see Artemis as the future of ActiveMQ. Other gray beards see it as a
> project that needs to get more adoption an prove itself before it's clear
> that it can be the evolution of the current 5.x version that serves the
> market very well (proven yet again by AWS). No consensus yet.
>
> Hadrian
>
>
>
> On 12/06/2017 10:45 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially state
>>> the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
>>> ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
>>> concerns.
>>>
>>
>>
>> This was also my understanding and what I voted for.
>> Maybe the intent of the vote needs to be clarified.
>>
>> is this what folks voted against?
>>
>> gary.
>>
>>


-- 
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'

ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>]

Gary,

That is precisely what folks vote -1 against. I hope you are not 
implying that the -1s should not be counted because you believe the -1s 
where for a different reason.

Surely you must remember the same issue being raised and a vote called 
some 2 years ago if my memory serves me well (I can look it up if 
necessary). Exactly same vote, exactly same statement of intent. You 
know how that went. What changed to start it all over again?

Can we agree that this vote is a PR/marketing play, not technology? This 
is not a vote for a controversial feature people can't agree on, nor on 
accepting an external contribution, nor a release vote. What is it?

Some see Artemis as the future of ActiveMQ. Other gray beards see it as 
a project that needs to get more adoption an prove itself before it's 
clear that it can be the evolution of the current 5.x version that 
serves the market very well (proven yet again by AWS). No consensus yet.

Hadrian


On 12/06/2017 10:45 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially state
>> the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
>> ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
>> concerns.
> 
> 
> This was also my understanding and what I voted for.
> Maybe the intent of the vote needs to be clarified.
> 
> is this what folks voted against?
> 
> gary.
> 

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[jgenender <jg...@apache.org>]

christopher.l.shannon wrote
> Hadrian,
> 
> In my opinion the AWS argument actually proves the point more than ever
> that we need to clarify the status of the project.
> 
> Amazon didn't consult anyone form this community as far as I am aware.
> They probably chose to use 5.x precisely because they didn't know what the
> plan was with Artemis.  If it was more clear that Artemis was going to be
> the future then maybe they would have used it instead of 5.x

Umm no... you are actually quite incorrect on that. :-) Don't ask me how I
know that... because I cannot answer that.  But you are way off.  Hadrian's
answer was actually much more accurate.



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>]

On 12/06/2017 11:08 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
> Hadrian,
> 
> In my opinion the AWS argument actually proves the point more than ever
> that we need to clarify the status of the project.

I fully understand your point, but first it has to be clarified 
internally, not externally. Ages ago it was very clarified and stated 
publicly that Apollo is the future ActiveMQ 6 and it will be fantastic. 
Written in Scala it would have unparalleled performance and be something 
the world has never seen (and btw, Hiram poured pure magic into Apollo, 
brilliant work). There are users/companies who invested in that, 
believing in what was advertised by the ActiveMQ community. Not a good 
investment, not good for the reputation of the ActiveMQ community.

I, personally, do not believe the "yes, but this time it will be 
different" argument and have more respect for the markets. Let's prove 
it first and then we can announce whatever.

> 
> Amazon didn't consult anyone form this community as far as I am aware.
This is my feeling as well.

> They probably chose to use 5.x precisely because they didn't know what the
> plan was with Artemis.  If it was more clear that Artemis was going to be
> the future then maybe they would have used it instead of 5.x
I don't think so. Like the *vast* majority of users, they don't make 
choices based on interacting with the community. They do research, 
figure out what people say, look at trends, see what 'experts' blog 
about, see if there is diversity in support, whatever metrics they 
choose, depending on their experience with open source (and AWS are no 
amateurs, as we know). I doubt that that an "official statement of 
intent" would have changed Amazon's decision driven by market metrics 
(again, they're no amateurs), regardless of what we may convince 
ourselves to believe. Do you have any factual reason to believe otherwise?

So let's increase Artemis' adoption based on its technical merits. Then 
it won't matter how it's called. But let's not disrupt the marketplace 
and piggyback adoption on the success of the ActiveMQ brand with PR stunts.

I understand people have visions, aspirations desires and all. That's 
great. As a community, however, we are making commitment based on 
consensus. That's the Apache Way.

I understand the vision and the intent, I don't think the community is 
ready to make a commitment based on that vision. I think I am not alone 
in believing that. I understand that others have different views and I 
respect that.


> 
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On 12/06/2017 10:56 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps we need to clarify what is being proposed with very explicit
>>> statements and recast the vote?
>>>
>>
>> What would that change? Do you have any doubts that people understood what
>> the vote is for and voted accordingly?
>>
>>
>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>>
> 

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>]

Hadrian,

In my opinion the AWS argument actually proves the point more than ever
that we need to clarify the status of the project.

Amazon didn't consult anyone form this community as far as I am aware.
They probably chose to use 5.x precisely because they didn't know what the
plan was with Artemis.  If it was more clear that Artemis was going to be
the future then maybe they would have used it instead of 5.x

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 12/06/2017 10:56 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
>> Perhaps we need to clarify what is being proposed with very explicit
>> statements and recast the vote?
>>
>
> What would that change? Do you have any doubts that people understood what
> the vote is for and voted accordingly?
>
>
>
>> Bruce
>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>]

On 12/06/2017 10:56 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
> Perhaps we need to clarify what is being proposed with very explicit
> statements and recast the vote?

What would that change? Do you have any doubts that people understood 
what the vote is for and voted accordingly?


> 
> Bruce
> 

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>]

Perhaps we need to clarify what is being proposed with very explicit
statements and recast the vote?

Bruce

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:

> That is what I voted for.  6.0 won't be released until concerns are
> addressed, such as backwards compatibility and migration.
>
> But we need to clarify to the users what the intentions are with Artemis.
> Right now if you go to the website it's not at all clear what the plan is.
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially
> > state
> > > the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
> > > ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
> > > concerns.
> >
> >
> > This was also my understanding and what I voted for.
> > Maybe the intent of the vote needs to be clarified.
> >
> > is this what folks voted against?
> >
> > gary.
> >
>



-- 
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'

ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>]

That is what I voted for.  6.0 won't be released until concerns are
addressed, such as backwards compatibility and migration.

But we need to clarify to the users what the intentions are with Artemis.
Right now if you go to the website it's not at all clear what the plan is.

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially
> state
> > the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
> > ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
> > concerns.
>
>
> This was also my understanding and what I voted for.
> Maybe the intent of the vote needs to be clarified.
>
> is this what folks voted against?
>
> gary.
>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially state
> the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
> ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
> concerns.


This was also my understanding and what I voted for.
Maybe the intent of the vote needs to be clarified.

is this what folks voted against?

gary.

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>]

My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially state
the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
concerns. For this I vote +1.

We must document this intent clearly on the website, stating that there is
no plan to deprecate ActiveMQ 5.x and explain that ActiveMQ 5.x development
line will continue. We also must make it very clear on the website that
ActiveMQ 6.x is not officially released yet. There are too many users who
will not upgrade their current environments easily (or possibly ever) and
we must not leave them in a lurch.

I agree that there are several points of confusion that must be addressed
and these need to be identified on a wiki page so that the project can work
through each of them. Also, more testing must be done to prove that all
ActiveMQ 5.x supported scenarios have been covered by Artemis, including
the migration of existing ActiveMQ 5.x configurations to Artemis (this
migration must be exhaustively documented).

Another topic that I think should be addressed is the version number that
is currently being used for Artemis as releasing it with a version of 2.x
sends a confusing messaging to the community.

To address the vendor version questions, such questions concerning vendor
products have zero bearing on the Apache ActiveMQ project and are not the
project's concern.

Bruce

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
wrote:

> +1
>
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:33 PM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> > ActiveMQ project roadmap"
> >
> > linked here for convenience :
> > -
> > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-
> surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> > -
> > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-
> Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
> >
> >
> > I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
> > ActiveMQ 6.
> >
> > [+1] -  agree
> > [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> > [0] - neutral but go ahead
> >
> > This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
> >
> > Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
> >
> --
> Hiram Chirino
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>



-- 
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'

ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>]

+1

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:33 PM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>
> linked here for convenience :
> -
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> -
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>
>
> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
> ActiveMQ 6.
>
> [+1] -  agree
> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>
> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>
> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
>
-- 
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Michael André Pearce <mi...@me.com>]

+1 (non-binding)

Cheers
Mike

> On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
> 
> linked here for convenience :
> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
> 
> 
> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming ActiveMQ 6.
> 
> [+1] -  agree
> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> [0] - neutral but go ahead
> 
> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
> 
> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>]

On 12/06/2017 05:04 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> I’m +1 on starting the process of updating the websites and such to promote Artemis more and working toward getting it ready to become 6.     That definitely means getting a roadmap started (nice job Bruce!) and doing some level of gap analysis between it and AMQ5.
>
> I personally think the “adoption argument” is bull shit.   That’s like saying the Tomcat community cannot release Tomcat 9 until the adoption of "Tomcat 9 (beta)” becomes significant.  That’s just dumb.   So it really comes down to features and documentation/migration.  Again, get a roadmap in place that documents what needs to be done, get docs and such updated, promote it as an alpha/beta/whatever to get those that are willing to test it to do so, and when it’s ready, we release as 6.0.   (and, IMO, it doesn’t need to be perfect to be 6.0.   We can always spin a 6.0.1 or 6.1 if folks run into issues that haven’t been found)
>
>
> Dan
>

+1

Well said Dan.

>
>> On Dec 4, 2017, at 3:32 PM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
>> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>>
>> linked here for convenience :
>> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
>> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>>
>>
>> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming ActiveMQ 6.
>>
>> [+1] -  agree
>> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
>> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>>
>> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>>
>> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.


-- 
Tim Bish
twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>]

You continue to make more accusations, justifying yourself by accusing me
of being disingenuous.  These statements are just plain ignorant.  They
don't warrant a sensible response.

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Martyn, you continue to misrepresent things.


> When we say RH on this thread it's pretty clear what it means. It was said
> before, we prefer to use this term to refer to a group that does have an
> agenda.

There are a few people who refuse to have conversations that ignore the
> elephant in the room.
>
> So, RH. I have nothing but respect for RedHat Software, Inc. I have
> friends over there, I know its culture, I was invited to some of its
> events, I *recommend* some of its products. Great company, friendly to open
> source, sponsor of the ASF.
>
> The RH clique in this thread refers to a group of people who, in my
> experience, are pushing an agenda. You claim that Artemis has fantastic
> technical merits. Fine. In the open source world, pay attention, value is
> given by adoption. Not by marketing materials, not by what managers say,
> *adoption*! ActiveMQ proved that, Camel did, Karaf did, CXF did. Heck,
> HTTPD did, Hadoop+Spark big data ecosystem, Maven, they all did, by getting
> adoption.
>
> HornetQ/Artemis has its chance, it's on equal footing. All this
> conversation points to a belief of the said clique that lives in an echo
> chamber that the *only* way to get adoption for Artemis is to steal the
> ActiveMQ name, buy replacing it. The only tool said clique has (and had) is
> overwhelming veto power in the PMC (Bruce mentioned it yesterday that
> technically the vote could pass, but he knows very well what would happen
> next). I asked you, and the -1s got reversed in an amusing way, if you want
> to grow Artemis inside or outside the ActiveMQ community. So you don't want
> to go TLP (I expected that) because like I was told in the past what you
> want is the ActiveMQ brand. And the more sad reason for that (I know
> outraged replies will follow), is that the issue is you promising something
> to your managers and thy bought into your ideas the hinge on stealing
> (basically) ActiveMQ. It's not RedHat Software, Inc's fault, it's all on
> you. And now you're in a bind. Even scarier is that the market, see AWS
> seems, to validate the value of ActiveMQ (the real one, 5.x).
>
> So, I dare you to prove me wrong, and prove the Artemis value by
> increasing adoption. Bonus points for doing it without abusing the ActiveMQ
> brand. Or you can try abusing of your voting power. But you'd gain more
> respect from building technology of undeniable value, like many of the ASF
> projects.
>
> Hadrian
>
>
>
>
> On 12/07/2017 06:26 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>
>> To be quite frank, I'm offended by some of the accusations made in this
>> thread.
>>
>> After the last round of accusations of Red Hat are pushing through their
>> own agenda, I'm sad to see it happening again.  I continue to use my Red
>> Hat email address in public discussions, in my PR requests and review.
>> I've nothing to hide nor am I ashamed to be employed by a company like Red
>> Hat.  My legions lie with ActiveMQ and making the project and community a
>> better place.  I've put so much personal and emotional effort into this
>> project.  To have my votes and opinions abrogated just because I work for
>> a
>> certain company I find shocking and not at all democratic.
>>
>> Actually, looking back through this vote thread to the people who voted
>> +1,
>> who were accused of pushing an alternate agenda are actually the same
>> people who I see involved in the community on a day to day basis.  The
>> same
>> people fixing bugs, answering user questions and doing releases.  And
>> they're not all employed by the same company.
>>
>> If people want to vote -1 to this, fair enough you're entitled to your
>> vote
>> and I have no issue.  But, all this talk about companies pushing an
>> agenda,
>> seems to me to be a bit of a guise to detract away from the actual subject
>> in hand.  TBH, I am sick of hearing about it.
>>
>> I respect the result of the vote.
>>
>> I am -1 on the idea of making Artemis TLP.
>> I am +1  on Bruce's suggestion on creating a Roadmap.  I think this is
>> really what we need right now.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Michael André Pearce <
>> michael.andre.pearce@me.com> wrote:
>>
>> On the website front I’m happy to stick my hand up, giving it an overhaul
>>> and design inline with the new logo.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On 6 Dec 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to take on
>>>> this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more
>>>>
>>> prominent
>>>
>>>> on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a
>>>> separate discussion around this.
>>>>
>>>> More discussions on the dev list is *always* a good thing.
>>>>
>>>> Bruce
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>>>>
>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from this
>>>>> thread:
>>>>>
>>>>> - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
>>>>> - Refactor the website... like.. now...  with Artemis being brought
>>>>> forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
>>>>>    ... any volunteers here?
>>>>>    ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the
>>>>> confluent
>>>>> wiki.
>>>>> - Have more discussions on the dev list
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> perl -e 'print
>>>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
>>>> );'
>>>>
>>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
>>>> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Christian Posta <ch...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:12 AM Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Martyn, you continue to misrepresent things.
>
> When we say RH on this thread it's pretty clear what it means. It was
> said before, we prefer to use this term to refer to a group that does
> have an agenda. There are a few people who refuse to have conversations
> that ignore the elephant in the room.
>
> So, RH. I have nothing but respect for RedHat Software, Inc. I have
> friends over there, I know its culture, I was invited to some of its
> events, I *recommend* some of its products. Great company, friendly to
> open source, sponsor of the ASF.
>
> The RH clique in this thread refers to a group of people who, in my
> experience, are pushing an agenda.


Who’s that?


You claim that Artemis has fantastic
> technical merits. Fine. In the open source world, pay attention, value
> is given by adoption. Not by marketing materials, not by what managers
> say, *adoption*! ActiveMQ proved that, Camel did, Karaf did, CXF did.
> Heck, HTTPD did, Hadoop+Spark big data ecosystem, Maven, they all did,
> by getting adoption.
>
> HornetQ/Artemis has its chance, it's on equal footing. All this
> conversation points to a belief of the said clique that lives in an echo
> chamber that the *only* way to get adoption for Artemis is to steal the
> ActiveMQ name, buy replacing it. The only tool said clique has (and had)
> is overwhelming veto power in the PMC (Bruce mentioned it yesterday that
> technically the vote could pass, but he knows very well what would
> happen next). I asked you, and the -1s got reversed in an amusing way,
> if you want to grow Artemis inside or outside the ActiveMQ community. So
> you don't want to go TLP (I expected that) because like I was told in
> the past what you want is the ActiveMQ brand. And the more sad reason
> for that (I know outraged replies will follow), is that the issue is you
> promising something to your managers and thy bought into your ideas the
> hinge on stealing (basically) ActiveMQ. It's not RedHat Software, Inc's
> fault, it's all on you. And now you're in a bind. Even scarier is that
> the market, see AWS seems, to validate the value of ActiveMQ (the real
> one, 5.x).
>
> So, I dare you to prove me wrong, and prove the Artemis value by
> increasing adoption. Bonus points for doing it without abusing the
> ActiveMQ brand. Or you can try abusing of your voting power. But you'd
> gain more respect from building technology of undeniable value, like
> many of the ASF projects.
>
> Hadrian
>
>
>
> On 12/07/2017 06:26 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
> > To be quite frank, I'm offended by some of the accusations made in this
> > thread.
> >
> > After the last round of accusations of Red Hat are pushing through their
> > own agenda, I'm sad to see it happening again.  I continue to use my Red
> > Hat email address in public discussions, in my PR requests and review.
> > I've nothing to hide nor am I ashamed to be employed by a company like
> Red
> > Hat.  My legions lie with ActiveMQ and making the project and community a
> > better place.  I've put so much personal and emotional effort into this
> > project.  To have my votes and opinions abrogated just because I work
> for a
> > certain company I find shocking and not at all democratic.
> >
> > Actually, looking back through this vote thread to the people who voted
> +1,
> > who were accused of pushing an alternate agenda are actually the same
> > people who I see involved in the community on a day to day basis.  The
> same
> > people fixing bugs, answering user questions and doing releases.  And
> > they're not all employed by the same company.
> >
> > If people want to vote -1 to this, fair enough you're entitled to your
> vote
> > and I have no issue.  But, all this talk about companies pushing an
> agenda,
> > seems to me to be a bit of a guise to detract away from the actual
> subject
> > in hand.  TBH, I am sick of hearing about it.
> >
> > I respect the result of the vote.
> >
> > I am -1 on the idea of making Artemis TLP.
> > I am +1  on Bruce's suggestion on creating a Roadmap.  I think this is
> > really what we need right now.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Michael André Pearce <
> > michael.andre.pearce@me.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On the website front I’m happy to stick my hand up, giving it an
> overhaul
> >> and design inline with the new logo.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >>> On 6 Dec 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to take
> on
> >>> this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more
> >> prominent
> >>> on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a
> >>> separate discussion around this.
> >>>
> >>> More discussions on the dev list is *always* a good thing.
> >>>
> >>> Bruce
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> >> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from this
> >>>> thread:
> >>>>
> >>>> - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
> >>>> - Refactor the website... like.. now...  with Artemis being brought
> >>>> forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
> >>>>    ... any volunteers here?
> >>>>    ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the
> confluent
> >>>> wiki.
> >>>> - Have more discussions on the dev list
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> perl -e 'print
> >>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
> >>>
> >>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> >>> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> >>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
> >>
> >
>
-- 
*Christian Posta*
twitter: @christianposta
http://www.christianposta.com/blog
http://fabric8.io

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>]

Agree with Jeff. I will address another question that was raised, I 
think by Chris, below. I think it was aggressive, not characteristic to 
him, so let's say he deserves an honest answer.

First off, I am not sure what your definition of contributions to the 
project is. I am also curious what level of contributions is sufficient 
for you, so one can gain your respect and have a civil conversation. The 
question itself reflects either ignorance of how the ASF works and the 
Apache Way, or ignorance of what I do. Or frustration, let's go with that.

Let's say that my contributions to the foundation itself don't count (I 
probably have more than all of you together). If my memory serves me 
well in the past 2 maybe 3 years I am the only one who presented on 
ActiveMQ at ApacheCon (with Jamie Goodyear once) and other conferences. 
That's community building, that's something you should do for Artemis. 
Does that count?

Let's take Bruce, who's a dear friend. Not a lot of code contributions 
to ActiveMQ (you should check). But you know what, back in 2005-2007 he 
was the most passionate evangelist for ActiveMQ and the project wouldn't 
be what it is without him. Seriously. He helped many early adopters be 
wowed by what ActiveMQ could do. I would love to provide concrete 
examples (public info), just ask.

I did slow down the code contributions, true, but that doesn't make me 
less actively involved in the project, actually probably even more, 
because, like Art, Jeff, Jamie (and many others who are not committers 
in spite of more contributions than some current committers) we continue 
driving adoption of ActiveMQ.

What I hope you all will understand is that users/companies made huge 
investments in ActiveMQ. Your role is to protect, not trash this 
investment (by creating the confusion you complain about). You need to 
prove the viability of Artemis via adoption, growing the community and 
providing an effective migration path (ideally drop in replacement) for 
ActiveMQ to aspire to be called AMQ6.

Food for thought,
Hadrian


On 12/07/2017 10:07 AM, jgenender wrote:
> Hadrian, +1, and very well said.  I had a response ready to go, but you
> summed up the most parts.  I will fill in a few holes...
> 

> Everyone is here because they contributed and have some form of blood,
> sweat, and tears in this project.  Clamoring around and saying you are
> better because you did a CVE or whatever, is hidden words for "I get paid to
> work on open source... you don't so I can make the decisions and you have no
> right".  Thats offensive.  Because guess what?  Once Bruce, me, Hadrian,
> Arthur, and many others DID get paid to work on ActiveMQ and we DO care
> about this project, even when we weren't paid.  

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[jgenender <jg...@apache.org>]

Hadrian, +1, and very well said.  I had a response ready to go, but you
summed up the most parts.  I will fill in a few holes...

Martyn (and Chris I guess) I am asking that you please put down your
pitchforks.   The history of the players, not the employer per se, but the
small subset has caused quite a stir on this project and others that causes
serious mistrust on agendas.  Unfortunately you guys are somewhat collateral
damage and have likely not taken the time to look at the history in the mail
lists (and for those of you who are on private@) the knock down drag out,
bellicose, passive-aggressive attacks that come from this small contingent
of people who preceded you.  I won't call people out because this thread has
gotten way to personal already and that will not do anyone any good.  I'll
leave it to you to research for itself and perhaps it will shed some light
on what Hadrian has just stated, while it will show why there is mistrust. 

Martyn and Chris, calling out a "what have you contributed" isn't cool. 
Everyone is here because they contributed and have some form of blood,
sweat, and tears in this project.  Clamoring around and saying you are
better because you did a CVE or whatever, is hidden words for "I get paid to
work on open source... you don't so I can make the decisions and you have no
right".  Thats offensive.  Because guess what?  Once Bruce, me, Hadrian,
Arthur, and many others DID get paid to work on ActiveMQ and we DO care
about this project, even when we weren't paid.  I cant contribute 1/1000th
the volume you guys do anymore because I don't get paid to do it.  But I
surely care about this project, its community, and its future because I paid
my dues, just like you are doing today.  I mean with your argument, maybe a
contingent of the people who sit on the Apache Board should just resign
because they provide oversight and don't contribute swathes of code anymore?  

That said, the above is neither here nor there for the sake of this
conversation and it doesn't matter.  Its there to provide a bit of history
and hopefully hint to you guys on some of the arguments you are making that
really have no bearing on this vote.  Its just to provide some history.

The decisions made so far in this thread were nothing against Artemis, Red
Hat, etc.  It was project folks stating to get Artemis on track for
migration so it CAN become ActiveMQ 6 and be adopted.  People here want
Artemis to EARN its community.  I am sure you do!  Don't you want Artemis to
stand on its own 2 feet and have a community based on its own merits?  You
have 100% support for that here, yes even the -1 people. 

AFAICT, we reached consensus.  Migration path and getting more prominence of
Artemis on the main AMQ website.

Lets move forward in a positive direction and stop the personal attacks and
sour grapes.  Everyone here wants to see Artemis succeed.  So lets do this.



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>]

Martyn, you continue to misrepresent things.

When we say RH on this thread it's pretty clear what it means. It was 
said before, we prefer to use this term to refer to a group that does 
have an agenda. There are a few people who refuse to have conversations 
that ignore the elephant in the room.

So, RH. I have nothing but respect for RedHat Software, Inc. I have 
friends over there, I know its culture, I was invited to some of its 
events, I *recommend* some of its products. Great company, friendly to 
open source, sponsor of the ASF.

The RH clique in this thread refers to a group of people who, in my 
experience, are pushing an agenda. You claim that Artemis has fantastic 
technical merits. Fine. In the open source world, pay attention, value 
is given by adoption. Not by marketing materials, not by what managers 
say, *adoption*! ActiveMQ proved that, Camel did, Karaf did, CXF did. 
Heck, HTTPD did, Hadoop+Spark big data ecosystem, Maven, they all did, 
by getting adoption.

HornetQ/Artemis has its chance, it's on equal footing. All this 
conversation points to a belief of the said clique that lives in an echo 
chamber that the *only* way to get adoption for Artemis is to steal the 
ActiveMQ name, buy replacing it. The only tool said clique has (and had) 
is overwhelming veto power in the PMC (Bruce mentioned it yesterday that 
technically the vote could pass, but he knows very well what would 
happen next). I asked you, and the -1s got reversed in an amusing way, 
if you want to grow Artemis inside or outside the ActiveMQ community. So 
you don't want to go TLP (I expected that) because like I was told in 
the past what you want is the ActiveMQ brand. And the more sad reason 
for that (I know outraged replies will follow), is that the issue is you 
promising something to your managers and thy bought into your ideas the 
hinge on stealing (basically) ActiveMQ. It's not RedHat Software, Inc's 
fault, it's all on you. And now you're in a bind. Even scarier is that 
the market, see AWS seems, to validate the value of ActiveMQ (the real 
one, 5.x).

So, I dare you to prove me wrong, and prove the Artemis value by 
increasing adoption. Bonus points for doing it without abusing the 
ActiveMQ brand. Or you can try abusing of your voting power. But you'd 
gain more respect from building technology of undeniable value, like 
many of the ASF projects.

Hadrian



On 12/07/2017 06:26 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
> To be quite frank, I'm offended by some of the accusations made in this
> thread.
> 
> After the last round of accusations of Red Hat are pushing through their
> own agenda, I'm sad to see it happening again.  I continue to use my Red
> Hat email address in public discussions, in my PR requests and review.
> I've nothing to hide nor am I ashamed to be employed by a company like Red
> Hat.  My legions lie with ActiveMQ and making the project and community a
> better place.  I've put so much personal and emotional effort into this
> project.  To have my votes and opinions abrogated just because I work for a
> certain company I find shocking and not at all democratic.
> 
> Actually, looking back through this vote thread to the people who voted +1,
> who were accused of pushing an alternate agenda are actually the same
> people who I see involved in the community on a day to day basis.  The same
> people fixing bugs, answering user questions and doing releases.  And
> they're not all employed by the same company.
> 
> If people want to vote -1 to this, fair enough you're entitled to your vote
> and I have no issue.  But, all this talk about companies pushing an agenda,
> seems to me to be a bit of a guise to detract away from the actual subject
> in hand.  TBH, I am sick of hearing about it.
> 
> I respect the result of the vote.
> 
> I am -1 on the idea of making Artemis TLP.
> I am +1  on Bruce's suggestion on creating a Roadmap.  I think this is
> really what we need right now.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Michael André Pearce <
> michael.andre.pearce@me.com> wrote:
> 
>> On the website front I’m happy to stick my hand up, giving it an overhaul
>> and design inline with the new logo.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On 6 Dec 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to take on
>>> this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more
>> prominent
>>> on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a
>>> separate discussion around this.
>>>
>>> More discussions on the dev list is *always* a good thing.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from this
>>>> thread:
>>>>
>>>> - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
>>>> - Refactor the website... like.. now...  with Artemis being brought
>>>> forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
>>>>    ... any volunteers here?
>>>>    ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the confluent
>>>> wiki.
>>>> - Have more discussions on the dev list
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> perl -e 'print
>>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
>>>
>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
>>> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>>
> 

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>]

Why?  You going to verify my affiliation or something?  I don't have
anything to prove to you.  As Tim said in another thread you don't
intimidate me either.

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:38 AM, jgenender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:

> Oh let’s not go there Chris :-). You won’t like the answers.
>
> Who are you affiliated with, Chris?
>
>
> christopher.l.shannon wrote
> > As someone who has no affiliation with Red Hat (I don't work for them and
> > I
> > am not a customer) I do get pretty tired of all the accusations as well
> > and
> > getting lumped into having an agenda.
> >
> > I am a heavy 5.x user and I have contributed to the project quite a bit
> > the
> > past couple of years.  My motivation for wanting Artemis to succeed is
> > purely a technical one.  I have evaluated both brokers and Artemis is not
> > perfect but it has a good architecture and in my opinion is a good
> > foundation for building the best broker possible.  Others can disagree
> and
> > that is fine but that is my reasoning.
> >
> > Martyn brings up a point that I have avoided bringing up until now but I
> > will bring it up because I'm pretty tired of all of the accusations about
> > company agendas.  I think it's pretty obvious from anyone paying
> attention
> > to see that the people who are voting -1 are the same people who are not
> > involved in the community at all.  Jeff and Hadrian and company...when's
> > the last time you guys actually contributed anything to the project?
> > Answered a user question?  Fixed a bug?  Joined in on a technical
> > discussion? Did a release? Fixed a CVE?  The only time you guys show up
> is
> > on threads like this.
> >
> > To all the people who voted -1 because you don't think that Artemis is
> > ready to become ActiveMQ 6 because of lack of migration and
> features...how
> > about you guys actually help contribute and make it a reality instead of
> > making accusations?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Martyn Taylor &lt;
>
> > mtaylor@
>
> > &gt; wrote:
> >
> >> To be quite frank, I'm offended by some of the accusations made in this
> >> thread.
> >>
> >> After the last round of accusations of Red Hat are pushing through their
> >> own agenda, I'm sad to see it happening again.  I continue to use my Red
> >> Hat email address in public discussions, in my PR requests and review.
> >> I've nothing to hide nor am I ashamed to be employed by a company like
> >> Red
> >> Hat.  My legions lie with ActiveMQ and making the project and community
> a
> >> better place.  I've put so much personal and emotional effort into this
> >> project.  To have my votes and opinions abrogated just because I work
> for
> >> a
> >> certain company I find shocking and not at all democratic.
> >>
> >> Actually, looking back through this vote thread to the people who voted
> >> +1,
> >> who were accused of pushing an alternate agenda are actually the same
> >> people who I see involved in the community on a day to day basis.  The
> >> same
> >> people fixing bugs, answering user questions and doing releases.  And
> >> they're not all employed by the same company.
> >>
> >> If people want to vote -1 to this, fair enough you're entitled to your
> >> vote
> >> and I have no issue.  But, all this talk about companies pushing an
> >> agenda,
> >> seems to me to be a bit of a guise to detract away from the actual
> >> subject
> >> in hand.  TBH, I am sick of hearing about it.
> >>
> >> I respect the result of the vote.
> >>
> >> I am -1 on the idea of making Artemis TLP.
> >> I am +1  on Bruce's suggestion on creating a Roadmap.  I think this is
> >> really what we need right now.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Michael André Pearce <
> >>
>
> > michael.andre.pearce@
>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On the website front I’m happy to stick my hand up, giving it an
> >> overhaul
> >> > and design inline with the new logo.
> >> >
> >> > Mike
> >> >
> >> > Sent from my iPhone
> >> >
> >> > > On 6 Dec 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Snyder &lt;
>
> > bruce.snyder@
>
> > &gt; wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to
> take
> >> on
> >> > > this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more
> >> > prominent
> >> > > on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a
> >> > > separate discussion around this.
> >> > >
> >> > > More discussions on the dev list is *always* a good thing.
> >> > >
> >> > > Bruce
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> >> >
>
> > clebert.suconic@
>
> >>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from
> this
> >> > >> thread:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
> >> > >> - Refactor the website... like.. now...  with Artemis being brought
> >> > >> forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
> >> > >>   ... any volunteers here?
> >> > >>   ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the
> >> confluent
> >> > >> wiki.
> >> > >> - Have more discussions on the dev list
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > perl -e 'print
> >> > >
> >> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E&lt;D\!G;6%
> I;\&quot;YC;VT*&quot;
> > &gt; );'
> >> > >
> >> > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> >> > > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ &lt;http://bruceblog.org/&gt;
> >> > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
> >> >
> >>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-
> f2368404.html
>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[jgenender <jg...@apache.org>]

Oh let’s not go there Chris :-). You won’t like the answers.

Who are you affiliated with, Chris?


christopher.l.shannon wrote
> As someone who has no affiliation with Red Hat (I don't work for them and
> I
> am not a customer) I do get pretty tired of all the accusations as well
> and
> getting lumped into having an agenda.
> 
> I am a heavy 5.x user and I have contributed to the project quite a bit
> the
> past couple of years.  My motivation for wanting Artemis to succeed is
> purely a technical one.  I have evaluated both brokers and Artemis is not
> perfect but it has a good architecture and in my opinion is a good
> foundation for building the best broker possible.  Others can disagree and
> that is fine but that is my reasoning.
> 
> Martyn brings up a point that I have avoided bringing up until now but I
> will bring it up because I'm pretty tired of all of the accusations about
> company agendas.  I think it's pretty obvious from anyone paying attention
> to see that the people who are voting -1 are the same people who are not
> involved in the community at all.  Jeff and Hadrian and company...when's
> the last time you guys actually contributed anything to the project?
> Answered a user question?  Fixed a bug?  Joined in on a technical
> discussion? Did a release? Fixed a CVE?  The only time you guys show up is
> on threads like this.
> 
> To all the people who voted -1 because you don't think that Artemis is
> ready to become ActiveMQ 6 because of lack of migration and features...how
> about you guys actually help contribute and make it a reality instead of
> making accusations?
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Martyn Taylor <

> mtaylor@

> > wrote:
> 
>> To be quite frank, I'm offended by some of the accusations made in this
>> thread.
>>
>> After the last round of accusations of Red Hat are pushing through their
>> own agenda, I'm sad to see it happening again.  I continue to use my Red
>> Hat email address in public discussions, in my PR requests and review.
>> I've nothing to hide nor am I ashamed to be employed by a company like
>> Red
>> Hat.  My legions lie with ActiveMQ and making the project and community a
>> better place.  I've put so much personal and emotional effort into this
>> project.  To have my votes and opinions abrogated just because I work for
>> a
>> certain company I find shocking and not at all democratic.
>>
>> Actually, looking back through this vote thread to the people who voted
>> +1,
>> who were accused of pushing an alternate agenda are actually the same
>> people who I see involved in the community on a day to day basis.  The
>> same
>> people fixing bugs, answering user questions and doing releases.  And
>> they're not all employed by the same company.
>>
>> If people want to vote -1 to this, fair enough you're entitled to your
>> vote
>> and I have no issue.  But, all this talk about companies pushing an
>> agenda,
>> seems to me to be a bit of a guise to detract away from the actual
>> subject
>> in hand.  TBH, I am sick of hearing about it.
>>
>> I respect the result of the vote.
>>
>> I am -1 on the idea of making Artemis TLP.
>> I am +1  on Bruce's suggestion on creating a Roadmap.  I think this is
>> really what we need right now.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Michael André Pearce <
>> 

> michael.andre.pearce@

>> wrote:
>>
>> > On the website front I’m happy to stick my hand up, giving it an
>> overhaul
>> > and design inline with the new logo.
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPhone
>> >
>> > > On 6 Dec 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Snyder &lt;

> bruce.snyder@

> &gt; wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to take
>> on
>> > > this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more
>> > prominent
>> > > on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a
>> > > separate discussion around this.
>> > >
>> > > More discussions on the dev list is *always* a good thing.
>> > >
>> > > Bruce
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>> > 

> clebert.suconic@

>>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from this
>> > >> thread:
>> > >>
>> > >> - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
>> > >> - Refactor the website... like.. now...  with Artemis being brought
>> > >> forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
>> > >>   ... any volunteers here?
>> > >>   ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the
>> confluent
>> > >> wiki.
>> > >> - Have more discussions on the dev list
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > perl -e 'print
>> > >
>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E&lt;D\!G;6%I;\&quot;YC;VT*&quot;
> &gt; );'
>> > >
>> > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
>> > > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ &lt;http://bruceblog.org/&gt;
>> > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>> >
>>





--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>]

As someone who has no affiliation with Red Hat (I don't work for them and I
am not a customer) I do get pretty tired of all the accusations as well and
getting lumped into having an agenda.

I am a heavy 5.x user and I have contributed to the project quite a bit the
past couple of years.  My motivation for wanting Artemis to succeed is
purely a technical one.  I have evaluated both brokers and Artemis is not
perfect but it has a good architecture and in my opinion is a good
foundation for building the best broker possible.  Others can disagree and
that is fine but that is my reasoning.

Martyn brings up a point that I have avoided bringing up until now but I
will bring it up because I'm pretty tired of all of the accusations about
company agendas.  I think it's pretty obvious from anyone paying attention
to see that the people who are voting -1 are the same people who are not
involved in the community at all.  Jeff and Hadrian and company...when's
the last time you guys actually contributed anything to the project?
Answered a user question?  Fixed a bug?  Joined in on a technical
discussion? Did a release? Fixed a CVE?  The only time you guys show up is
on threads like this.

To all the people who voted -1 because you don't think that Artemis is
ready to become ActiveMQ 6 because of lack of migration and features...how
about you guys actually help contribute and make it a reality instead of
making accusations?


On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:

> To be quite frank, I'm offended by some of the accusations made in this
> thread.
>
> After the last round of accusations of Red Hat are pushing through their
> own agenda, I'm sad to see it happening again.  I continue to use my Red
> Hat email address in public discussions, in my PR requests and review.
> I've nothing to hide nor am I ashamed to be employed by a company like Red
> Hat.  My legions lie with ActiveMQ and making the project and community a
> better place.  I've put so much personal and emotional effort into this
> project.  To have my votes and opinions abrogated just because I work for a
> certain company I find shocking and not at all democratic.
>
> Actually, looking back through this vote thread to the people who voted +1,
> who were accused of pushing an alternate agenda are actually the same
> people who I see involved in the community on a day to day basis.  The same
> people fixing bugs, answering user questions and doing releases.  And
> they're not all employed by the same company.
>
> If people want to vote -1 to this, fair enough you're entitled to your vote
> and I have no issue.  But, all this talk about companies pushing an agenda,
> seems to me to be a bit of a guise to detract away from the actual subject
> in hand.  TBH, I am sick of hearing about it.
>
> I respect the result of the vote.
>
> I am -1 on the idea of making Artemis TLP.
> I am +1  on Bruce's suggestion on creating a Roadmap.  I think this is
> really what we need right now.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Michael André Pearce <
> michael.andre.pearce@me.com> wrote:
>
> > On the website front I’m happy to stick my hand up, giving it an overhaul
> > and design inline with the new logo.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 6 Dec 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to take
> on
> > > this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more
> > prominent
> > > on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a
> > > separate discussion around this.
> > >
> > > More discussions on the dev list is *always* a good thing.
> > >
> > > Bruce
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from this
> > >> thread:
> > >>
> > >> - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
> > >> - Refactor the website... like.. now...  with Artemis being brought
> > >> forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
> > >>   ... any volunteers here?
> > >>   ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the
> confluent
> > >> wiki.
> > >> - Have more discussions on the dev list
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > perl -e 'print
> > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
> > >
> > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> > > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>]

To be quite frank, I'm offended by some of the accusations made in this
thread.

After the last round of accusations of Red Hat are pushing through their
own agenda, I'm sad to see it happening again.  I continue to use my Red
Hat email address in public discussions, in my PR requests and review.
I've nothing to hide nor am I ashamed to be employed by a company like Red
Hat.  My legions lie with ActiveMQ and making the project and community a
better place.  I've put so much personal and emotional effort into this
project.  To have my votes and opinions abrogated just because I work for a
certain company I find shocking and not at all democratic.

Actually, looking back through this vote thread to the people who voted +1,
who were accused of pushing an alternate agenda are actually the same
people who I see involved in the community on a day to day basis.  The same
people fixing bugs, answering user questions and doing releases.  And
they're not all employed by the same company.

If people want to vote -1 to this, fair enough you're entitled to your vote
and I have no issue.  But, all this talk about companies pushing an agenda,
seems to me to be a bit of a guise to detract away from the actual subject
in hand.  TBH, I am sick of hearing about it.

I respect the result of the vote.

I am -1 on the idea of making Artemis TLP.
I am +1  on Bruce's suggestion on creating a Roadmap.  I think this is
really what we need right now.


On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Michael André Pearce <
michael.andre.pearce@me.com> wrote:

> On the website front I’m happy to stick my hand up, giving it an overhaul
> and design inline with the new logo.
>
> Mike
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 6 Dec 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to take on
> > this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more
> prominent
> > on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a
> > separate discussion around this.
> >
> > More discussions on the dev list is *always* a good thing.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from this
> >> thread:
> >>
> >> - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
> >> - Refactor the website... like.. now...  with Artemis being brought
> >> forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
> >>   ... any volunteers here?
> >>   ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the confluent
> >> wiki.
> >> - Have more discussions on the dev list
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > perl -e 'print
> > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
> >
> > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Michael André Pearce <mi...@me.com>]

On the website front I’m happy to stick my hand up, giving it an overhaul and design inline with the new logo.

Mike

Sent from my iPhone

> On 6 Dec 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to take on
> this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more prominent
> on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a
> separate discussion around this.
> 
> More discussions on the dev list is *always* a good thing.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from this
>> thread:
>> 
>> - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
>> - Refactor the website... like.. now...  with Artemis being brought
>> forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
>>   ... any volunteers here?
>>   ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the confluent
>> wiki.
>> - Have more discussions on the dev list
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
> 
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>]

To echo the thoughts of Matt and Michael...I don't work for RH either so I
agree with what others have said about not lumping everyone together.

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to take on
> this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more prominent
> on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a
> separate discussion around this.
>
> More discussions on the dev list is *always* a good thing.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from this
> > thread:
> >
> > - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
> > - Refactor the website... like.. now...  with Artemis being brought
> > forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
> >    ... any volunteers here?
> >    ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the confluent
> > wiki.
> > - Have more discussions on the dev list
> >
>
>
>
> --
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
>
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>]

I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to take on
this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more prominent
on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a
separate discussion around this.

More discussions on the dev list is *always* a good thing.

Bruce

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...
>
>
>
> I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from this
> thread:
>
> - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
> - Refactor the website... like.. now...  with Artemis being brought
> forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
>    ... any volunteers here?
>    ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the confluent
> wiki.
> - Have more discussions on the dev list
>



-- 
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'

ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>]

Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...



I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from this thread:

- All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
- Refactor the website... like.. now...  with Artemis being brought
forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
   ... any volunteers here?
   ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the confluent wiki.
- Have more discussions on the dev list

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[jgenender <jg...@apache.org>]

Daniel Kulp wrote
> I personally think the “adoption argument” is bull shit.   That’s like
> saying the Tomcat community cannot release Tomcat 9 until the adoption of
> "Tomcat 9 (beta)” becomes significant.  That’s just dumb.   So it really
> comes down to features and documentation/migration.  Again, get a roadmap
> in place that documents what needs to be done, get docs and such updated,
> promote it as an alpha/beta/whatever to get those that are willing to test
> it to do so, and when it’s ready, we release as 6.0.   (and, IMO, it
> doesn’t need to be perfect to be 6.0.   We can always spin a 6.0.1 or 6.1
> if folks run into issues that haven’t been found)

That's apples to oranges and comparing Tomcat to this isn't even in the
realm of reasonable or correct.  This is a different animal all together.

Lets move on at this stage... it looks like we have a direction.



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>]

I’m +1 on starting the process of updating the websites and such to promote Artemis more and working toward getting it ready to become 6.     That definitely means getting a roadmap started (nice job Bruce!) and doing some level of gap analysis between it and AMQ5.  

I personally think the “adoption argument” is bull shit.   That’s like saying the Tomcat community cannot release Tomcat 9 until the adoption of "Tomcat 9 (beta)” becomes significant.  That’s just dumb.   So it really comes down to features and documentation/migration.  Again, get a roadmap in place that documents what needs to be done, get docs and such updated, promote it as an alpha/beta/whatever to get those that are willing to test it to do so, and when it’s ready, we release as 6.0.   (and, IMO, it doesn’t need to be perfect to be 6.0.   We can always spin a 6.0.1 or 6.1 if folks run into issues that haven’t been found)


Dan



> On Dec 4, 2017, at 3:32 PM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
> 
> linked here for convenience :
> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
> 
> 
> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming ActiveMQ 6.
> 
> [+1] -  agree
> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> [0] - neutral but go ahead
> 
> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
> 
> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.

-- 
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>]

+1

On 5 Dec 2017 7:59 am, "Francesco Nigro" <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
>
> Il giorno mar 5 dic 2017 alle ore 04:17 Francois Papon <
> francois.papon@openobject.fr> ha scritto:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > Francois
> >
> >
> > Le 05/12/2017 à 00:32, Clebert Suconic a écrit :
> > > Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> > > ActiveMQ project roadmap"
> > >
> > > linked here for convenience :
> > > -
> > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-
> surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> > > -
> > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-
> Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
> > >
> > >
> > > I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
> > ActiveMQ 6.
> > >
> > > [+1] -  agree
> > > [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> > > [0] - neutral but go ahead
> > >
> > > This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
> > >
> > > Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
> >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Francesco Nigro <ni...@gmail.com>]

+1 (non-binding)


Il giorno mar 5 dic 2017 alle ore 04:17 Francois Papon <
francois.papon@openobject.fr> ha scritto:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Francois
>
>
> Le 05/12/2017 à 00:32, Clebert Suconic a écrit :
> > Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> > ActiveMQ project roadmap"
> >
> > linked here for convenience :
> > -
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> > -
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
> >
> >
> > I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
> ActiveMQ 6.
> >
> > [+1] -  agree
> > [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> > [0] - neutral but go ahead
> >
> > This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
> >
> > Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
>
>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr>]

+1 (non-binding)

Francois


Le 05/12/2017 à 00:32, Clebert Suconic a écrit :
> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>
> linked here for convenience :
> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>
>
> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming ActiveMQ 6.
>
> [+1] -  agree
> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>
> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>
> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Howard Gao <ho...@gmail.com>]

+1

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
>
> On 12/04/2017 03:32 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
>> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
>> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>>
>> linked here for convenience :
>> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surr
>> ounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
>> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-
>> surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>>
>>
>> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
>> ActiveMQ 6.
>>
>> [+1] -  agree
>> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
>> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>>
>> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>>
>> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
>>
>>
> --
> Tim Bish
> twitter: @tabish121
> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>
>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>]

+1

On 12/04/2017 03:32 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>
> linked here for convenience :
> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>
>
> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming ActiveMQ 6.
>
> [+1] -  agree
> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>
> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>
> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
>

-- 
Tim Bish
twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Johan Edstrom <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -1 Non binding for the same reasons.

Rob has recast his vote for +1, considering that we won't release 6.x
until migration documentation is clear for migration... look the
following up emails.

we are just talking about having a roadmap for 6.x.. we are not releasing 6.x.



>
>> On Dec 6, 2017, at 8:20 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> -1
>>
>> agree with Rob
>>
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>> On 12/05/2017 05:17 AM, Rob Davies wrote:
>>> [0] - without a clear migration path and tooling to assist existing users moving from ActiveMQ 5 to Artemis, we risk abandoning those  users - who may then be forced to look at alternatives and abandon ActiveMQ all together. This could be counter productive to the original intent.
>>>> On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
>>>> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>>>>
>>>> linked here for convenience :
>>>> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
>>>> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming ActiveMQ 6.
>>>>
>>>> [+1] -  agree
>>>> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
>>>> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>>>>
>>>> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>>>>
>>>> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
>



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Johan Edstrom <se...@gmail.com>]

-1 Non binding for the same reasons.

> On Dec 6, 2017, at 8:20 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> -1
> 
> agree with Rob
> 
> Hadrian
> 
> 
> On 12/05/2017 05:17 AM, Rob Davies wrote:
>> [0] - without a clear migration path and tooling to assist existing users moving from ActiveMQ 5 to Artemis, we risk abandoning those  users - who may then be forced to look at alternatives and abandon ActiveMQ all together. This could be counter productive to the original intent.
>>> On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
>>> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>>> 
>>> linked here for convenience :
>>> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
>>> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming ActiveMQ 6.
>>> 
>>> [+1] -  agree
>>> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
>>> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>>> 
>>> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>>> 
>>> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>]

-1

agree with Rob

Hadrian


On 12/05/2017 05:17 AM, Rob Davies wrote:
> [0] - without a clear migration path and tooling to assist existing users moving from ActiveMQ 5 to Artemis, we risk abandoning those  users - who may then be forced to look at alternatives and abandon ActiveMQ all together. This could be counter productive to the original intent.
> 
> 
> 
>> On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
>> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>>
>> linked here for convenience :
>> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
>> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>>
>>
>> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming ActiveMQ 6.
>>
>> [+1] -  agree
>> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
>> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>>
>> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>>
>> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
> 

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>]

+1, This would probably be a good time to update the website to a more
modern design as well

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sounds good - I recast my vote to +1
>
>
> > On 5 Dec 2017, at 13:18, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Point taken.  We should improve the migration doc the best we can.
> >
> > If we make this a blocking/mandatory task before a 6 release, would you
> > consider changing your vote to +1. (I would add this remark to the
> closing
> > vote and would add a blocking/mandatory JIRA so it wouldn’t be released
> > without working on it)
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:17 AM Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> [0] - without a clear migration path and tooling to assist existing
> users
> >> moving from ActiveMQ 5 to Artemis, we risk abandoning those  users - who
> >> may then be forced to look at alternatives and abandon ActiveMQ all
> >> together. This could be counter productive to the original intent.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> >>> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
> >>>
> >>> linked here for convenience :
> >>> -
> >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-
> surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> >>> -
> >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-
> Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
> >> ActiveMQ 6.
> >>>
> >>> [+1] -  agree
> >>> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> >>> [0] - neutral but go ahead
> >>>
> >>> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
> >>>
> >>> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
> >>
> >> --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>]

Sounds good - I recast my vote to +1


> On 5 Dec 2017, at 13:18, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Point taken.  We should improve the migration doc the best we can.
> 
> If we make this a blocking/mandatory task before a 6 release, would you
> consider changing your vote to +1. (I would add this remark to the closing
> vote and would add a blocking/mandatory JIRA so it wouldn’t be released
> without working on it)
> 
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:17 AM Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> [0] - without a clear migration path and tooling to assist existing users
>> moving from ActiveMQ 5 to Artemis, we risk abandoning those  users - who
>> may then be forced to look at alternatives and abandon ActiveMQ all
>> together. This could be counter productive to the original intent.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
>>> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>>> 
>>> linked here for convenience :
>>> -
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
>>> -
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
>> ActiveMQ 6.
>>> 
>>> [+1] -  agree
>>> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
>>> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>>> 
>>> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>>> 
>>> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
>> 
>> --
> Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>]

Point taken.  We should improve the migration doc the best we can.

If we make this a blocking/mandatory task before a 6 release, would you
consider changing your vote to +1. (I would add this remark to the closing
vote and would add a blocking/mandatory JIRA so it wouldn’t be released
without working on it)

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:17 AM Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:

> [0] - without a clear migration path and tooling to assist existing users
> moving from ActiveMQ 5 to Artemis, we risk abandoning those  users - who
> may then be forced to look at alternatives and abandon ActiveMQ all
> together. This could be counter productive to the original intent.
>
>
>
> > On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> > ActiveMQ project roadmap"
> >
> > linked here for convenience :
> > -
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> > -
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
> >
> >
> > I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
> ActiveMQ 6.
> >
> > [+1] -  agree
> > [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> > [0] - neutral but go ahead
> >
> > This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
> >
> > Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
>
> --
Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>]

[0] - without a clear migration path and tooling to assist existing users moving from ActiveMQ 5 to Artemis, we risk abandoning those  users - who may then be forced to look at alternatives and abandon ActiveMQ all together. This could be counter productive to the original intent. 



> On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
> 
> linked here for convenience :
> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
> - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
> 
> 
> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming ActiveMQ 6.
> 
> [+1] -  agree
> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
> [0] - neutral but go ahead
> 
> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
> 
> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>]

Mike,

While I agree with most of what you state, I fail to see the relevance.

When a user upgrades from project FOO version N to FOO version N+1, 
there is an expectation of reasonable backwards compatibility. Version 
N+1 may or may not be a complete rewrite, but rules of engagement are 
clear. The intent for Artemis to become ActiveMQ 6 was already stated 
ages ago.

Since RH was mentioned there is ok to completely replace the guts of a 
project by keeping its name and bump the version number, with whatever 
that means for users (more PS for upgrades, etc). At the ASF we don't do 
that. This went all the way to the board and the result was clear. Looks 
like it may end up there again.

So, -1.
Hadrian

[1] https://semver.org/

On 12/06/2017 02:08 AM, Michael André Pearce wrote:
> Based on the Dev discussion linked I believe this vote was more making the direction and future clearer for users, its not deprecating overnight 5.x, but simply clearing up what is ActiveMQ 6 going to be.
> 
> 
> On your commends about JBoss.
> 
> I don’t think vendor versions should come in here. Apache projects and its versions should have their own lifecycle not influenced by what vendors re-packing and supporting apache projects are doing. This is an Apache Project, NOT a RedHat/JBoss project.
> 
> Many other apache products which have vendors releasing their own versions, such as:
> 
> Apache Hadoop (HDFS) with Hortonwork, Cloudera, MAPR
> Apache Kafka with Confluent
> Apache Ignite with GridGain
> 
> They all have versions that conflict and/or are different with the upstream Apache projects.
> 
> On that note re your comment ""JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo" whilst I’m not a RedHat person/employee so I cannot be an official source (I work for a company that uses both ActiveMQ as some of its message brokers), but from their documentation available publicly on their site, JBOSS AMQ 6 is based on ActiveMQ 5.X.
> 
> Saying this and re-iterating my previous comment, Apache versioning should be agnostic to what vendors are versioning and shouldn’t come into this discussion IMO.
> 
> On that note to the same cord, i think it may answer a little your question re adoption if RH are releasing their vendor product based on it switching from it seems 5.X to Artemis shows that the maturity/adoptions of Artemis, they would obviously have customers using it, and others transitioning from their previous version.
> 
> Whilst on Adoption, I’m aware that:
> 
> * Spring Framework already has support for ActiveMQ Artemis, its one of the options within Spring Boot, along side Rabbit, Kafka and ActiveMQ 5.X (https://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/current/reference/html/boot-features-messaging.html)
> * WildFly is using it reading their docs (https://docs.jboss.org/author/display/WFLY10/Messaging+configuration)
> * Other open source projects are building / adopting on it:
>   * OpenIoE -> https://github.com/scorelab/OpenIoE
>   * Enmasse.io -> http://enmasse.io
> 
> Cheers
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 6 Dec 2017, at 03:51, artnaseef <ar...@amlinv.com> wrote:
>>
>> -1  I think we need to slow down.
>>
>> While the referenced discussion opened the possibility of unifying on a
>> single broker, there's a lot more to discuss before that decision is made.
>> Naming Artemis as ActiveMQ 6 implies to the community that we are
>> deprecating AMQ 5 now.
>>
>> For example, the assertion that "I think all the features are covered at
>> this point" shows a lack of clarity itself.  If we were truly methodical,
>> then we would have a list of criteria needed for Artemis to take the name
>> ActiveMQ 6.
>>
>> ActiveMQ is an important asset to the communities it serves, and it deserves
>> the greatest of attention and care.
>>
>> Questions coming to mind for making this decision:
>> * What is the full list of features needed?
>> * How much adoption does Artemis have?
>> * How stable is Artemis?
>> * What features will be dropped?  Scheduler?  HTTP endpoints?  ...
>>
>> Just today I ran into the following bug the hard way:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1022.
>>
>> Notice it's still open after more than 8 months.  It impacts OpenWire
>> support, which is critical to me as we want the most straight-forward
>> transition for customers as possible.
>>
>> Please start to enumerate these points.
>>
>> BTW, on the confusion front, since "JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo and "JBoss AMQ 7"
>> is Artemis, I think renaming Artemis to ActiveMQ 6 will create even more
>> confusion.
>>
>> ALSO - one big point.  This DEV list is hard to follow now thanks to the
>> vast majority of messages being commit messages, and while I 100% agree with
>> having this discussion on the DEV list, the PMC needs to be made aware of
>> these discussions and votes on the PMC list.
>>
>> I'll post the link there now.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
> 

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>]

Art,

I don't think anyone is planning to deprecate 5.x support right now.  I
think it will stick around for some time and it's fine to have both
versions supported.

Also, the JBoss name is not an Apache name, it is a RH product.  It should
have no effect on what the community here decides to use for version
numbers.



On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:34 AM, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:

> +1.
>
> From my understanding, this vote is outlining the intent going forward, not
> necessarily the details of how we get there.  I agree there are some
> discussions to be had over the details, e.g. what this might look and what
> needs to be done in order to facilitate our existing user base.  But I
> think we need a clear vision before we can set out a road map of how to get
> there.
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Michael André Pearce <
> michael.andre.pearce@me.com> wrote:
>
> > Based on the Dev discussion linked I believe this vote was more making
> the
> > direction and future clearer for users, its not deprecating overnight
> 5.x,
> > but simply clearing up what is ActiveMQ 6 going to be.
> >
> >
> > On your commends about JBoss.
> >
> > I don’t think vendor versions should come in here. Apache projects and
> its
> > versions should have their own lifecycle not influenced by what vendors
> > re-packing and supporting apache projects are doing. This is an Apache
> > Project, NOT a RedHat/JBoss project.
> >
> > Many other apache products which have vendors releasing their own
> > versions, such as:
> >
> > Apache Hadoop (HDFS) with Hortonwork, Cloudera, MAPR
> > Apache Kafka with Confluent
> > Apache Ignite with GridGain
> >
> > They all have versions that conflict and/or are different with the
> > upstream Apache projects.
> >
> > On that note re your comment ""JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo" whilst I’m not a
> > RedHat person/employee so I cannot be an official source (I work for a
> > company that uses both ActiveMQ as some of its message brokers), but from
> > their documentation available publicly on their site, JBOSS AMQ 6 is
> based
> > on ActiveMQ 5.X.
> >
> > Saying this and re-iterating my previous comment, Apache versioning
> should
> > be agnostic to what vendors are versioning and shouldn’t come into this
> > discussion IMO.
> >
> > On that note to the same cord, i think it may answer a little your
> > question re adoption if RH are releasing their vendor product based on it
> > switching from it seems 5.X to Artemis shows that the maturity/adoptions
> of
> > Artemis, they would obviously have customers using it, and others
> > transitioning from their previous version.
> >
> > Whilst on Adoption, I’m aware that:
> >
> > * Spring Framework already has support for ActiveMQ Artemis, its one of
> > the options within Spring Boot, along side Rabbit, Kafka and ActiveMQ
> 5.X (
> > https://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/current/
> > reference/html/boot-features-messaging.html)
> > * WildFly is using it reading their docs (https://docs.jboss.org/
> > author/display/WFLY10/Messaging+configuration)
> > * Other open source projects are building / adopting on it:
> >  * OpenIoE -> https://github.com/scorelab/OpenIoE
> >  * Enmasse.io -> http://enmasse.io
> >
> > Cheers
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 6 Dec 2017, at 03:51, artnaseef <ar...@amlinv.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > -1  I think we need to slow down.
> > >
> > > While the referenced discussion opened the possibility of unifying on a
> > > single broker, there's a lot more to discuss before that decision is
> > made.
> > > Naming Artemis as ActiveMQ 6 implies to the community that we are
> > > deprecating AMQ 5 now.
> > >
> > > For example, the assertion that "I think all the features are covered
> at
> > > this point" shows a lack of clarity itself.  If we were truly
> methodical,
> > > then we would have a list of criteria needed for Artemis to take the
> name
> > > ActiveMQ 6.
> > >
> > > ActiveMQ is an important asset to the communities it serves, and it
> > deserves
> > > the greatest of attention and care.
> > >
> > > Questions coming to mind for making this decision:
> > > * What is the full list of features needed?
> > > * How much adoption does Artemis have?
> > > * How stable is Artemis?
> > > * What features will be dropped?  Scheduler?  HTTP endpoints?  ...
> > >
> > > Just today I ran into the following bug the hard way:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1022.
> > >
> > > Notice it's still open after more than 8 months.  It impacts OpenWire
> > > support, which is critical to me as we want the most straight-forward
> > > transition for customers as possible.
> > >
> > > Please start to enumerate these points.
> > >
> > > BTW, on the confusion front, since "JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo and "JBoss
> > AMQ 7"
> > > is Artemis, I think renaming Artemis to ActiveMQ 6 will create even
> more
> > > confusion.
> > >
> > > ALSO - one big point.  This DEV list is hard to follow now thanks to
> the
> > > vast majority of messages being commit messages, and while I 100% agree
> > with
> > > having this discussion on the DEV list, the PMC needs to be made aware
> of
> > > these discussions and votes on the PMC list.
> > >
> > > I'll post the link there now.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-
> > f2368404.html
> >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>]

+1.

From my understanding, this vote is outlining the intent going forward, not
necessarily the details of how we get there.  I agree there are some
discussions to be had over the details, e.g. what this might look and what
needs to be done in order to facilitate our existing user base.  But I
think we need a clear vision before we can set out a road map of how to get
there.

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Michael André Pearce <
michael.andre.pearce@me.com> wrote:

> Based on the Dev discussion linked I believe this vote was more making the
> direction and future clearer for users, its not deprecating overnight 5.x,
> but simply clearing up what is ActiveMQ 6 going to be.
>
>
> On your commends about JBoss.
>
> I don’t think vendor versions should come in here. Apache projects and its
> versions should have their own lifecycle not influenced by what vendors
> re-packing and supporting apache projects are doing. This is an Apache
> Project, NOT a RedHat/JBoss project.
>
> Many other apache products which have vendors releasing their own
> versions, such as:
>
> Apache Hadoop (HDFS) with Hortonwork, Cloudera, MAPR
> Apache Kafka with Confluent
> Apache Ignite with GridGain
>
> They all have versions that conflict and/or are different with the
> upstream Apache projects.
>
> On that note re your comment ""JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo" whilst I’m not a
> RedHat person/employee so I cannot be an official source (I work for a
> company that uses both ActiveMQ as some of its message brokers), but from
> their documentation available publicly on their site, JBOSS AMQ 6 is based
> on ActiveMQ 5.X.
>
> Saying this and re-iterating my previous comment, Apache versioning should
> be agnostic to what vendors are versioning and shouldn’t come into this
> discussion IMO.
>
> On that note to the same cord, i think it may answer a little your
> question re adoption if RH are releasing their vendor product based on it
> switching from it seems 5.X to Artemis shows that the maturity/adoptions of
> Artemis, they would obviously have customers using it, and others
> transitioning from their previous version.
>
> Whilst on Adoption, I’m aware that:
>
> * Spring Framework already has support for ActiveMQ Artemis, its one of
> the options within Spring Boot, along side Rabbit, Kafka and ActiveMQ 5.X (
> https://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/current/
> reference/html/boot-features-messaging.html)
> * WildFly is using it reading their docs (https://docs.jboss.org/
> author/display/WFLY10/Messaging+configuration)
> * Other open source projects are building / adopting on it:
>  * OpenIoE -> https://github.com/scorelab/OpenIoE
>  * Enmasse.io -> http://enmasse.io
>
> Cheers
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6 Dec 2017, at 03:51, artnaseef <ar...@amlinv.com> wrote:
> >
> > -1  I think we need to slow down.
> >
> > While the referenced discussion opened the possibility of unifying on a
> > single broker, there's a lot more to discuss before that decision is
> made.
> > Naming Artemis as ActiveMQ 6 implies to the community that we are
> > deprecating AMQ 5 now.
> >
> > For example, the assertion that "I think all the features are covered at
> > this point" shows a lack of clarity itself.  If we were truly methodical,
> > then we would have a list of criteria needed for Artemis to take the name
> > ActiveMQ 6.
> >
> > ActiveMQ is an important asset to the communities it serves, and it
> deserves
> > the greatest of attention and care.
> >
> > Questions coming to mind for making this decision:
> > * What is the full list of features needed?
> > * How much adoption does Artemis have?
> > * How stable is Artemis?
> > * What features will be dropped?  Scheduler?  HTTP endpoints?  ...
> >
> > Just today I ran into the following bug the hard way:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1022.
> >
> > Notice it's still open after more than 8 months.  It impacts OpenWire
> > support, which is critical to me as we want the most straight-forward
> > transition for customers as possible.
> >
> > Please start to enumerate these points.
> >
> > BTW, on the confusion front, since "JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo and "JBoss
> AMQ 7"
> > is Artemis, I think renaming Artemis to ActiveMQ 6 will create even more
> > confusion.
> >
> > ALSO - one big point.  This DEV list is hard to follow now thanks to the
> > vast majority of messages being commit messages, and while I 100% agree
> with
> > having this discussion on the DEV list, the PMC needs to be made aware of
> > these discussions and votes on the PMC list.
> >
> > I'll post the link there now.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-
> f2368404.html
>
>

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[Michael André Pearce <mi...@me.com>]

Based on the Dev discussion linked I believe this vote was more making the direction and future clearer for users, its not deprecating overnight 5.x, but simply clearing up what is ActiveMQ 6 going to be.


On your commends about JBoss.

I don’t think vendor versions should come in here. Apache projects and its versions should have their own lifecycle not influenced by what vendors re-packing and supporting apache projects are doing. This is an Apache Project, NOT a RedHat/JBoss project.

Many other apache products which have vendors releasing their own versions, such as:

Apache Hadoop (HDFS) with Hortonwork, Cloudera, MAPR
Apache Kafka with Confluent 
Apache Ignite with GridGain

They all have versions that conflict and/or are different with the upstream Apache projects.

On that note re your comment ""JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo" whilst I’m not a RedHat person/employee so I cannot be an official source (I work for a company that uses both ActiveMQ as some of its message brokers), but from their documentation available publicly on their site, JBOSS AMQ 6 is based on ActiveMQ 5.X.

Saying this and re-iterating my previous comment, Apache versioning should be agnostic to what vendors are versioning and shouldn’t come into this discussion IMO. 

On that note to the same cord, i think it may answer a little your question re adoption if RH are releasing their vendor product based on it switching from it seems 5.X to Artemis shows that the maturity/adoptions of Artemis, they would obviously have customers using it, and others transitioning from their previous version.

Whilst on Adoption, I’m aware that:

* Spring Framework already has support for ActiveMQ Artemis, its one of the options within Spring Boot, along side Rabbit, Kafka and ActiveMQ 5.X (https://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/current/reference/html/boot-features-messaging.html)
* WildFly is using it reading their docs (https://docs.jboss.org/author/display/WFLY10/Messaging+configuration)
* Other open source projects are building / adopting on it:
 * OpenIoE -> https://github.com/scorelab/OpenIoE
 * Enmasse.io -> http://enmasse.io

Cheers
Mike










> On 6 Dec 2017, at 03:51, artnaseef <ar...@amlinv.com> wrote:
> 
> -1  I think we need to slow down.
> 
> While the referenced discussion opened the possibility of unifying on a
> single broker, there's a lot more to discuss before that decision is made. 
> Naming Artemis as ActiveMQ 6 implies to the community that we are
> deprecating AMQ 5 now.
> 
> For example, the assertion that "I think all the features are covered at
> this point" shows a lack of clarity itself.  If we were truly methodical,
> then we would have a list of criteria needed for Artemis to take the name
> ActiveMQ 6.
> 
> ActiveMQ is an important asset to the communities it serves, and it deserves
> the greatest of attention and care.
> 
> Questions coming to mind for making this decision:
> * What is the full list of features needed?
> * How much adoption does Artemis have?
> * How stable is Artemis?
> * What features will be dropped?  Scheduler?  HTTP endpoints?  ...
> 
> Just today I ran into the following bug the hard way:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1022.
> 
> Notice it's still open after more than 8 months.  It impacts OpenWire
> support, which is critical to me as we want the most straight-forward
> transition for customers as possible.
> 
> Please start to enumerate these points.
> 
> BTW, on the confusion front, since "JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo and "JBoss AMQ 7"
> is Artemis, I think renaming Artemis to ActiveMQ 6 will create even more
> confusion.
> 
> ALSO - one big point.  This DEV list is hard to follow now thanks to the
> vast majority of messages being commit messages, and while I 100% agree with
> having this discussion on the DEV list, the PMC needs to be made aware of
> these discussions and votes on the PMC list.
> 
> I'll post the link there now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

[artnaseef <ar...@amlinv.com>]

-1  I think we need to slow down.

While the referenced discussion opened the possibility of unifying on a
single broker, there's a lot more to discuss before that decision is made. 
Naming Artemis as ActiveMQ 6 implies to the community that we are
deprecating AMQ 5 now.

For example, the assertion that "I think all the features are covered at
this point" shows a lack of clarity itself.  If we were truly methodical,
then we would have a list of criteria needed for Artemis to take the name
ActiveMQ 6.

ActiveMQ is an important asset to the communities it serves, and it deserves
the greatest of attention and care.

Questions coming to mind for making this decision:
* What is the full list of features needed?
* How much adoption does Artemis have?
* How stable is Artemis?
* What features will be dropped?  Scheduler?  HTTP endpoints?  ...

Just today I ran into the following bug the hard way:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1022.

Notice it's still open after more than 8 months.  It impacts OpenWire
support, which is critical to me as we want the most straight-forward
transition for customers as possible.

Please start to enumerate these points.

BTW, on the confusion front, since "JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo and "JBoss AMQ 7"
is Artemis, I think renaming Artemis to ActiveMQ 6 will create even more
confusion.

ALSO - one big point.  This DEV list is hard to follow now thanks to the
vast majority of messages being commit messages, and while I 100% agree with
having this discussion on the DEV list, the PMC needs to be made aware of
these discussions and votes on the PMC list.

I'll post the link there now.





--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html