Point taken. We should improve the migration doc the best we can. If we make this a blocking/mandatory task before a 6 release, would you consider changing your vote to +1. (I would add this remark to the closing vote and would add a blocking/mandatory JIRA so it wouldn’t be released without working on it)
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:17 AM Rob Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com> wrote: > [0] - without a clear migration path and tooling to assist existing users > moving from ActiveMQ 5 to Artemis, we risk abandoning those users - who > may then be forced to look at alternatives and abandon ActiveMQ all > together. This could be counter productive to the original intent. > > > > > On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the > > ActiveMQ project roadmap" > > > > linked here for convenience : > > - > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html > > - > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html > > > > > > I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming > ActiveMQ 6. > > > > [+1] - agree > > [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason > > [0] - neutral but go ahead > > > > This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day. > > > > Here is my +1 (PMC) vote. > > -- Clebert Suconic
