[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       activemq-dev
Subject:    Re: [DISCUSS] Status of NMS & CMS
From:       Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemmell () gmail ! com>
Date:       2019-03-23 15:39:31
Message-ID: CAFitrpTGnLB=ZvWFHzchwtajoUcXhKjp1Rb6yN8aekAEjFNL3w () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 14:41, jgenender <jgenender@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Robbie Gemmell wrote
> > After it sat going stale and unmaintained for years. It also took an
> > age to follow through on the vote to mark it deprecated.
> >
> > A clear discussion like this around Apollo would have been great far
> > sooner in my view.
>
> It was discussed.  IIRC, there was a good discussion surrounding HornetQ
> coming in and Apollo possibly going out, etc.  Its been brought up numerous
> times.  Its just nobody followed through on any form of deprecation.
>
>
>
> Robbie Gemmell wrote
> > I dont recall saying anything was unanimously sunset, only that this
> > thread was a good means to better establish the status of the
> > components, and that "If it becomes clear" the status was similar,
> > then it would in fact be similar.
>
> It certainly was discussed including a vote on deprecating it, leading to
> that blurb at the top of this page:
>
> http://activemq.apache.org/leveldb-store.html
>

Yes, and I was only saying that if it became clear during this
discussion of these components that they fell into similar situation,
then a reflection on their site pages like that above would seem
appropriate.

People have stepped up within this discussion since I started
commenting to say they are looking to maintain things, so they are not
in similar situation and no such reflection is needed on the site.
Discussion success, status clarified.

>
> Robbie Gemmell wrote
> > I dont really see linux drivers etc as comparable personally. Download
> > pages, release notes, docs etc don't seem like optional things for a
> > component of an Apache project to me.
> >
> > That said, I'm not offering to maintain these pages as I have enough
> > site maintainence to do elsewhere already. I am merely stating my
> > opinion, as you are.
>
> No... this is where you are incorrect.  If you don't see it as equal and you
> need a web site, then don't complain about it unless you are willing to pick
> up a shovel.  Offering up your opinion in the manner that you did is a
> bike-shed (http://bikeshed.com/) moment.  Don't state it unless you are
> willing to do something about it or provide some form of meaningful
> information.
>

If it isnt on the website its unclear how people looking to find our
maintained components on the website, alongside our others there, will
even know it exists or where to get it, or if they did find it by
another route not then get the impression they aren't an afterthought
or unmaintained.

For me just leaving what has already been prepared would be preferable
to removing it. Thats my opinion. I think its perfectly reasonable to
state that at the point someone proposes removing it from the website,
if only as feedback. Doing so doesnt require me to do anything else.

>
> Robbie Gemmell wrote
> >> If you are adamant about a website, then pick up a shovel and
> >> step up to do it.  Thats an easy way to get commit.
> >
> > I've had commit rights for some years now, but thanks for the tip.
>
> Interestingly enough, I have never heard of you, but low and behold you are
> a committer.  I don't see much activity from you for ActiveMQ.  My bad...
> surprisingly you are a committer of some form here (Artemis?). Its
> interesting how the left arm knows nothing about the right arm... which is a
> shame.
>

I'm far from one of the most active people here, especially in terms
of my actual commits over time to 5.x and less-so Artemis, but there
are other ways to contribute which I'd say I'm around often enough in
that at least some would notice.

It is a shame you consider yourself a left arm. I don't.

>
> Robbie Gemmell wrote
> > Indeed, which is why discussions like this are good to help bring out
> > who is interested in doing what. I dont see any issue or downside to
> > having clarifying discussions like this to help get a shared view on a
> > given situation, I get the feeling that some do though.
>
> No... there is certainly nothing wrong with the discussions.  Its delivery
> and how things are broadcasted impacts the way people take the message.
> When we have 2 semi-competing projects under the ActiveMQ arm and one side
> pushes hard, and the other side does not, it becomes a sticky situation.

I personally don't consider there to be competing sides here. If the
two you reference though are the brokers, I also dont think thats
especially related to discussion on the maintenance of independently
released client components.

> The overall feel of this discussion has been "deprecating" or "retiring",
> with undertones of not knowing if its being used, particularly from folks
> who haven't even contributed to discussions on those projects in the past.
> Then arguments ensue about who uses it and who does not.  99.9999% of the
> users of the APIs and ActiveMQ will never see this email thread.  So you are
> not going to get a deluge of people coming in and saying "I use it!".  You
> need to take the word of your co-committers.

For me at least this was a discsussion about maintenance and not about
usage. The views I expressed were not based on usage and didnt require
or expect any users, or committers on their behalf, to come in saying
"I use it!". For me there was no argument over that.

> Yes, I really wish that those
> who have an agenda/job to proliferate a certain project due to their work
> would be more inviting to the project as a whole, which could alleviate a
> large degree of where these discussions decompose.
>
> Jeff
>

There was no agenda behind my comments and I don't appreciate any
suggestion otherwise, which for me is the only thing here leading to
decomposure of discussion.

Fortunately with the status of the components clarified now, I dont
see further need for me to reply to this thread again.

Robbie
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]