On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Johan Edstrom <[email protected]> wrote: > -1 Non binding for the same reasons.
Rob has recast his vote for +1, considering that we won't release 6.x until migration documentation is clear for migration... look the following up emails. we are just talking about having a roadmap for 6.x.. we are not releasing 6.x. > >> On Dec 6, 2017, at 8:20 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> -1 >> >> agree with Rob >> >> Hadrian >> >> >> On 12/05/2017 05:17 AM, Rob Davies 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 <[email protected]> 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
