incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <john.d.am...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] RocketMQ Incubation Proposal
Date Sat, 05 Nov 2016 18:53:25 GMT
Hi Bruce,

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 12:21 PM Bruce Snyder <bruce.snyder@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Proposals for new ASF projects are offered to this list for constructive
> feedback. I am happy to help steer the RocketMQ proposal and project using
> your suggestions.
>
> First, as explained previously in this discussion thread by Von Gosling,
> there was some company IP that was mistakenly committed to the Github
> repository and through a '...unlucky... scavenging activity' the history
> was
> erased, as Von put it. I interpret this to mean that someone's git-fu went
> awry which unintentionally caused the history to be removed. Von also gives
> further explanation of the project history in a response below. Indeed,
> this is an unfortunate situation (and one that I've seen before with git),
> but should this prevent the project from coming to the ASF to improve and
> grow under the auspices of the ASF and The Apache Way?
>

I was simply trying to reiterate for Roman's sanity of what I understood
happened, based on Von's email, and my understanding of it.  I don't
particularly see any concerns with it (as you mention, it happens all of
the time), but you may want to consider removing notions that the software
was open sourced in 2012, since it sounds like it was more of a mistake.
The ASF has no requirement that code coming has to be already open sourced,
we expect an SGA to be filed with the software coming in.

FWIW, I still don't have a good understanding of OMS and its relationship
to RocketMQ.  It may be relevant (e.g. a commercial product based on the
open source product) or may be completely irrelevant (internal project name
vs external project name).


>
> Second, regarding your statement: 'and its a bit surprising, since Bruce is
> the chair of one of the competitors' -- All projects at the ASF exist
> together regardless of their focus and all projects needs good mentors,
> regardless of whether they are seen as competing or not. My interest in
> helping the RocketMQ project is no different than my interest in continuing
> to be involved with the ActiveMQ project. I have nearly 15 years experience
> at the ASF and I'm not here to play games and favor one project over
> another. I continue to be involved with the ASF to collaborate
> constructively with others on open source and to foster a community of
> inclusiveness where we can all continually learn and grow. The ASF is an
> inclusive place where even experienced projects can learn from new
> projects. As I've said for many years, we all come for code and stay for
> the people. My intent is to use my experience to help a new project and
> people to the ASF.
>

This is more of a concern of mine around the structure and content of the
proposal, and how some of it potentially leads to issues for the eventual
website around RocketMQ.  While the ASF will not limit itself to a single
product for a technological/functional area, I do see it as an issue that a
project provides references stating why you should use "it" vs another
Apache project.  I interpret the current "Relationships to other Apache
Products" section as being just that right now.  My only edit to that area
was to fix the moin-moin mark up in use, since it wasn't creating a valid
table (just as an FYI).

Typically when podlings come in, that section lists out the dependencies
they have on existing ASF projects/products.  Hence why I had responded
with the list I sent out - that list is more akin to what we usually see.
Here's some example proposals that do that a bit cleaner from my POV:

https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/AsterixDBProposal
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BrooklynProposal
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/DistributedLogProposal

As you can see there's two specific things being answered here.  The
primary being how they already play a role in the existing ecosystem by
consuming the projects.  A secondary case, which I think is what RocketMQ
should aim to follow, is found closely in the AsterixDB proposal.  They
specifically call out how they complement other products (e.g. Spark,
without providing a full integration) and how they differ from them (e.g.
Pig/Hive, HBase).  My feeling reading RocketMQ is that its done in a "this
is why RocketMQ is better than" approach instead of "this is why RocketMQ
differs from them" approach.

The questions I asked were meant to be leading questions - not necessarily
answered in this proposal (or ever) but to give some ideas of what should
be in that section.  So I don't really expect the to be dealt with at this
time, or possibly ever.

As an aside, I added a link to RocketMQ to the proposals page.  Saves
secretary a step (and hassle) as we get further down the line.

John




>
> Third, I think the two questions you have posed are both good suggestions
> for discussion and debate and might even help to improve the proposal. Even
> if there are no solid answers today, I think these would also be great
> ideas to debate around the code base and within the project moving forward.
> I really like the idea of cross-pollination with the projects you mentioned
> as well as others at the ASF. Since I have not worked on the RocketMQ code
> base, I will allow Von to respond to two questions posed by John with his
> thoughts:
>
> Von, can you please provide your thoughts on the following two questions
> specifically:
>
> - How can RocketMQ work with the existing Kafka or ActiveMQ communities to
> build cross platform clients?
> - How can RocketMQ look to leverage Cassandra, Geode, Derby as backend
> persistence stores?
>
>
> Bruce
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 3:26 PM, John D. Ament <john.d.ament@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 4:43 PM Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The proposal looks fine in general, but I'm slightly concerned about:
> > >    https://github.com/alibaba/RocketMQ/graphs/contributors
> > >
> > > It seems that the model so far has been -- through huge blobs of
> > > code over the wall. Given that the composition of initial committers
> > > is all from Alibaba I hope their mentors will spend a lot of time
> > > making sure that "commit early, commit often" mentality prevails.
> > >
> > > In addition to that, I can't seem to reconcile the statement:
> > >    "The source code was opened up in 2012."
> > > with what I see on GitHub. What am I missing?
> > >
> >
> > So I think these are the same points I was bringing up as well.  I
> suspect
> > its a case where there wasn't a ton of open source development on the
> > product and it was kept internal.
> >
> > I'm still a bit leary about the "relationship with other apache products"
> > section still.  I'm not interested in seeing how a podling competes with
> > other projects (and its a bit surprising, since Bruce is the chair of one
> > of the competitors), but instead how the podling has synergies with the
> > other components.  I raised that they're using ASF projects today in
> their
> > code base.
> >
> > Some other ways to address this section:
> >
> > - How can RocketMQ work with the existing Kafka or ActiveMQ communities
> to
> > build cross platform clients?
> > - How can RocketMQ look to leverage Cassandra, Geode, Derby as backend
> > persistence stores?
> >
> > etc..
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Roman.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Brian McCallister <brianm@skife.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > +1 !
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Cool.
> > > >>
> > > >> +1
> > > >>
> > > >> > On Nov 3, 2016, at 6:10 PM, Bruce Snyder <bruce.snyder@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Please find below a proposal for a new Incubator podling named
> > Apache
> > > >> > RocketMQ, a fast, low latency, reliable, scalable, distributed,
> easy
> > > to
> > > >> use
> > > >> > message-oriented middleware, especially for processing large
> amounts
> > > of
> > > >> > streaming data.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The draft proposal can be found in the wiki at the following
URL:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/RocketMQProposal
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Below, please find the text for the proposal below.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Bruce
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message