Hi Justin, I would rather to ActiveMQ Leto 5.17.0 (and then Leto 6.0 at some point).
Regards JB > Le 18 mars 2021 à 14:51, Justin Bertram <[email protected]> a écrit : > > I'm not clear on the versioning you're proposing. Are you saying that the > first release of this subproject would be ActiveMQ Leto 1.0? > > > Justin > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 7:46 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Robbie, >> >> My point is about "classic". I understand the meaning but I think it’s not >> a good "tagging". >> >> I don’t want to focus on ActiveMQ 5.x, because it prevents us to use >> another versioning. >> Why not ActiveMQ 6.0 that would be a new major ActiveMQ release. >> >> To summarize: >> 1. ActiveMQ 5.x is too restrictive for versioning >> 2. Classic is not a good "naming/tagging". >> >> That’s why I’m proposing a new identified name. It means we would have: >> >> - Apache ActiveMQ Artemis >> - Apache ActiveMQ Leto >> >> IMHO, it’s two subprojects under the same "umbrella" (like we have Camel >> K, Camel Spring Boot, Camel Karaf, or Karaf runtime, Karaf Decanter, Karaf >> Cave, etc). >> Each subproject deserves a clear naming. >> >> About the website, you got my point: I would like to get all wiki based >> resources, update and clean it to push on a dedicated sub context of the >> website: >> >> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis <http://activemq.apache.org/artemis> >> http://activemq.apache.org/leto <http://activemq.apache.org/leto> >> >> Each with its own announcement, download, documentation resources. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >>> Le 18 mars 2021 à 12:19, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> a >> écrit : >>> >>> The 'classic' terminology on the homepage is used more as a >>> description rather than a name to me, speaking to its quality and >>> vintage and in some small straightforward way. ActiveMQ 5 is still the >>> way the broker is referenced on the site as a whole so far as I see, >>> rather than ActiveMQ Classic. Essentially everywhere besides the >>> subdir name being 'classic' in the URL for grouping some of the newest >>> component pages. I dont think 'Leto' is particularly more useful than >>> 'classic' as a description, and especially not an improvement for the >>> subdir in the URL at this point. It would be quite the opposite for me >>> personally, I think it would be a bad idea. >>> >>> Changing the subdir on the site from 'classic' to something else >>> simplistic and direct such as 5 or 5x or 5.x? Sure, I can see that. >>> Dropping the "Classic" description suffix from the central box on the >>> homepage, leaving only the ActiveMQ 5 titling? By all means. Leto? I >>> dont really see that being an improvement at this point at all. >>> >>> On your other proposal of cleaning up mess, presumably that means the >>> mass of old 5.x wiki-derived pages on the site in the root (done to >>> preserve URLs during the site changeover I believe, over >>> individual-page redirects) that are rarely ever touched, and moving >>> such content into the subdir? Sounds great. >>> >>> Robbie >>> >>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 08:30, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi guys, >>>> >>>> I would like to bring on the table the naming of Apache ActiveMQ. >>>> >>>> I think "Classic" is not a good name, and it doesn’t mean anything. I >> think it would make more sense to have a generic name. >>>> >>>> As we have Apache ActiveMQ Artemis, I would like to propose Apache >> ActiveMQ Leto. >>>> >>>> From a cultural standpoint ;), Artemis is the Greek goddess of the >> hunt, the wilderness, wild animals, the Moon, and chastity. Artemis is the >> daughter of Zeus and Leto, and the twin sister of Apollo. >>>> As "ActiveMQ Classic" is "older" than Artemis, I propose to rename as >> Apache ActiveMQ Leto. >>>> >>>> This name change won’t impact the code repository, it’s more for the >> website. >>>> >>>> Related to that proposal, I would like to propose also to create a >> dedicated space for Leto: http://activemq.apache.org/leto < >> http://activemq.apache.org/leto> with a complete cleanup of the mess we >> have today (documentation, download page, announcements, etc). >>>> >>>> Thoughts ? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> JB >> >>
