On 03/20/2015 11:17 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
How is this any different than say CXF 2.7.x to CXF 3.0.x? Both versions use the same maven coordinates. Or Karaf 2.x -> 3.x -> 4.x?
+1 was wondering the same thing
My opinion is that if this is intended to eventually be a “6.0” of ActiveMQ, then lets keep going that direction. That said, if it’s not ready to be a full replacement, then give it a slightly different naming, like “6.0.0-M1” for milestone 1 or similar. I guess that would be my preference. Until we have all the migration issues hammered out and and feature replacements in place, (and OSGi support) I’m kind uncomfortable calling it 6.0. However, a "release milestone” along that path is still a good idea to get people working on it. Dan
+1 milestone releases would seem to make it clear where it's going
On Mar 19, 2015, at 8:57 PM, artnaseef <[email protected]> wrote: I will continue to look at this as I can find time. One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq- for the prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the followin: * activemq-ra * activemq-web I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with the activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users. And, I'm especially concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name will be in maven central. Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of confusion. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693512.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-- Tim Bish Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc. [email protected] | www.redhat.com skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121 blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
