Going to 6.0.0 was mistake that we later tried to fix with the m# proposal.
We are just trying to improve things. -- Clebert Suconic typing on the iPhone. > On Mar 25, 2015, at 17:40, Raul Kripalani <r...@evosent.com> wrote: > > As an ActiveMQ user and consultant for 7+ years now, I had received the > news of the HornetQ donation quite positively. > > AMQ had started to show troubling signs of inactivity. No new exciting > features any longer. Practically no interest in adopting JMS 2.0. In my > head, AMQ had gone into "maintenance mode" long ago - a fact that's quite > evident if you compare with the vitality of a (somewhat related) community > like Camel. > > I confess I have not followed the technical codebase merges, but it did > seem a bit risky to go with v6 for this first release. On a side note, it > doesn't even show seriousness that the v6 wiki page still puts Apollo > forward as core [1]. > > To me, it feels like a hasty and improvised step. The internals have > changed a great deal, if I'm not mistaken. > > Is the community confident enough to go shouting to the world "Hey! This is > our first MAJOR release after 7 years", and have it be a complete success? > > Or is the community somewhat making a risky move? > > Frankly, given the magnitude of the changes, I would have expected a > timeline of Alpha, Beta and CR releases. Even if this is not the custom in > this community. Two architectures are being merged, which makes it an > exceptional event. And that deserves exceptional software and release > engineering treatment, if you ask me. > > In other words, as an end user, consultant and spokesperson for many > customers, I would expect a series of pre-GA releases with advertisement > and announcements in blogs, online magazines, aggregators, etc. to gather > technical feedback before pushing v6 out the door. > > Regards, > Raúl. > > [1] http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html >> On 25 Mar 2015 22:06, "Tracy Snell" <tsn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I’m fairly certain most of the community is concerned about the future of >> activemq. It doesn’t follow that HornetQ is the correct choice going >> forward (it may be but I’ve not seen any consensus on that issue). The >> current course of naming HornetQ activemq6 seemed like a declaration that >> the community had agreed on what the future was going to look like. In >> reality it looks like 2 communities under one name with one side advocating >> a join us or say good bye mentality. It is far from evident that not going >> the HornetQ route will leave ActiveMQ to sink. That’s a bit of an insult to >> the non HornetQ side of this community. >> >> As a user I’m quite excited by the potential benefits of the HornetQ >> donation! I’ve been concerned about the future since Apollo didn’t take >> off. The benefits need to be explained, the path forward from 5 to a 6 that >> includes much/all of HornetQ needs to be agreed on and consensus built in >> the community. Otherwise it just looks like an attempt by HornetQ to take >> over the ActiveMQ name. >> >> >>>> On Mar 25, 2015, at 2:43 PM, Andy Taylor <andy.tayl...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:andy.tayl...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Rather than the activemq community jumping ship and leaving it to sink at >>> some point in the future, let's ensure the future of activemq and its >>> community and actually grow it by bringing 2 communities together by >> having >>> a project tbat everyone could (and should) get behind. >> >>
