-1 I think we need to slow down. While the referenced discussion opened the possibility of unifying on a single broker, there's a lot more to discuss before that decision is made. Naming Artemis as ActiveMQ 6 implies to the community that we are deprecating AMQ 5 now.
For example, the assertion that "I think all the features are covered at this point" shows a lack of clarity itself. If we were truly methodical, then we would have a list of criteria needed for Artemis to take the name ActiveMQ 6. ActiveMQ is an important asset to the communities it serves, and it deserves the greatest of attention and care. Questions coming to mind for making this decision: * What is the full list of features needed? * How much adoption does Artemis have? * How stable is Artemis? * What features will be dropped? Scheduler? HTTP endpoints? ... Just today I ran into the following bug the hard way: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1022. Notice it's still open after more than 8 months. It impacts OpenWire support, which is critical to me as we want the most straight-forward transition for customers as possible. Please start to enumerate these points. BTW, on the confusion front, since "JBoss AMQ 6" is Apollo and "JBoss AMQ 7" is Artemis, I think renaming Artemis to ActiveMQ 6 will create even more confusion. ALSO - one big point. This DEV list is hard to follow now thanks to the vast majority of messages being commit messages, and while I 100% agree with having this discussion on the DEV list, the PMC needs to be made aware of these discussions and votes on the PMC list. I'll post the link there now. -- Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
