Actually, this is probably the right way to phrase it. Maybe just on the HOME PAGE of AMQ 6 just have a call out.
I think it’s fair to work on a new broker because ActiveMQ 5 would need a lot of work in a lot of areas to modernize it. That said. It think the 5.x series should also be maintained for a while. So maybe just having them clearly explained that they are different things. Also, is Apollo dead and development officially moving to AMQ6 ? if so perhaps the best strategy is to mark it as so. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:26 AM, artnaseef <[email protected]> wrote: > ActiveMQ *is* what we can only distinguish clearly right now as ActiveMQ > 5.x. > > The ActiveMQ 6 name was once used for Apollo and now it's used for HornetQ. > Yes, it's confusing. > > Personally, I will be referring to the existing ActiveMQ > (https://github.com/apache/activemq), and only that code base, as > ActiveMQ - > until we have a plan that somehow one replaces the other. If you catch me > using "AMQ 6" or "AMQ 5" outside the discussion of naming, please smack me > in the back of the head ;-). > > I'm sorry for your confusion. It is a major concern that you were confused > and spent time and effort to work on HornetQ when you thought you were > upgrading ActiveMQ. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-6-0-0-required-Java-8-tp4693434p4693463.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > -- Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com Location: *San Francisco, CA* blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com … or check out my Google+ profile <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts> <http://spinn3r.com>
