Perhaps we need to clarify what is being proposed with very explicit
statements and recast the vote?
Bruce
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That is what I voted for. 6.0 won't be released until concerns are
> addressed, such as backwards compatibility and migration.
>
> But we need to clarify to the users what the intentions are with Artemis.
> Right now if you go to the website it's not at all clear what the plan is.
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <bruce.sny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially
> > state
> > > the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
> > > ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
> > > concerns.
> >
> >
> > This was also my understanding and what I voted for.
> > Maybe the intent of the vote needs to be clarified.
> >
> > is this what folks voted against?
> >
> > gary.
> >
>
--
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
