I disagree about the work/effort to go to a TLP. When we moved Karaf as TLP from Felix, it was pretty fast and straight forward. That’s true it’s a PMC decision, I would completely understand that some PMC members would prefer on the ActiveMQ "umbrella".
Anyway, I give up on this thread, agree with Gary: let’s keep colocation on the ActiveMQ "umbrella". We will see what our users will do. I will still maintain and work on ActiveMQ, heading to new features and releases. I will request some helps for website refactoring/cleanup. Regards JB > Le 19 mars 2021 à 21:21, Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > there is a huge amount of work being a TLP, duplicate work, it seems a > completely preposterous suggestion to me. > > I don't see problems if we can have clarity and appreciation for each > others work. > > We have come along way, today users have choice under the activemq > umbrella, there are now two openwire implementations; migration is an > option, a viable choice. > Let me give you all a concrete example: > - Selector aware virtual topics on artemis can work better than on > 5.x, that is what I was working on today. there is no need for the > selector cache plugin! > it is quite positive. alternatives are good and healthy. new > architectures present different possibilities. > > My personal feeling is that there is lots more in common that in > difference between the brokers, and our users will be one and the same > over time, or they will go elsewhere. > > I am delighted to see some activity on 5.x and look forward to seeing > how it evolves and being part of it. > > Let's not make extra work unless it is for very good reason. > Let's continue to co exist and let users decide what stream they want > to adopt or when. > > /gary > > On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 16:10, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: >> >> I agree. >> >> If no objection, I would start a vote to propose Artemis as TLP. >> >> Thoughts ? >> >> Regards >> JB >> >>> Le 19 mars 2021 à 17:00, Jonathan Gallimore <jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> >>> a écrit : >>> >>> I personally feel that renaming Classic to Leto has the potential to >>> further confuse people. I'd be +1 on Artemis becoming its own TLP. >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 3:37 PM Christopher Shannon < >>> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> JB, >>>> >>>> Right, I am a user of both products also. I am still a heavy 5.x/Classic >>>> user but I also am still trying to get my project/team onto Artemis as well >>>> but migration is always slow. I'm also working quite heavily with Kafka now >>>> as well which has taken up a lot of my time and prevented me from having as >>>> much interaction with AMQ recently. Having a separate TLP does not stop >>>> anyone from contributing and using both projects but it does make things a >>>> lot easier I think in terms of naming, versioning, etc. I think it also >>>> just adds a lot more clarity for the users. Also, even as its own TLP, >>>> there is no reason why Artemis can't still have a goal to be feature >>>> compliant with ActiveMQ 5.x. >>>> >>>> A pretty good example about how things are confusing right now is Artemis >>>> has been advertised as the next generation but there has been a lot of >>>> discussion recently about 5.x release cycles, upgrading the datastore, JMS >>>> 2.0 upgrades, etc. Basically it looks like it is still being actively >>>> development (which it is) so a user might be pretty confused about which >>>> broker to pick and what is going on long term. >>>> >>>> Anyways, I can only speak for myself so maybe most people still think the >>>> two projects should stay together under 1 umbrella. If I am in the minority >>>> and most people want to keep everything together that is fine. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 11:15 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Chris, >>>>> >>>>> I’m sharing the same feeling and analyze. >>>>> >>>>> Even if I plan to work more on Artemis (first PR will happen soon ;)), >>>> the >>>>> current situation is what you describe: we have two communities. >>>>> >>>>> It’s not a bad thing IMHO, it happens in all projects, with time and >>>>> resulting of some decisions taken. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> JB >>>>> >>>>>> Le 19 mars 2021 à 16:02, Christopher Shannon < >>>>> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> The real issue here is quite obvious and demonstrated over the last >>>>> several >>>>>> years and that is the goal isn't really agreed upon by everyone. Some >>>>>> people think the goal should be to make Artemis the next generation and >>>>>> others don't agree with that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Personally, while I still think having one broker to rally upon and >>>> make >>>>>> the best broker possible (Artemis) should be the goal, the realist in >>>> me >>>>>> does not believe this will ever happen without significant push back >>>> from >>>>>> the members of the community that do not want this to happen. >>>>>> >>>>>> Over the past couple of years my opinion has swayed now to simply >>>> making >>>>>> Artemis its own TLP. Even after 6 years we have 2 separate communities >>>>>> entirely. We basically have 2 independent projects with almost no >>>> overlap >>>>>> between developers and users so why not just make Artemis its own TLP? >>>> I >>>>>> really see no benefit of operating under the same umbrella anymore (I >>>>> guess >>>>>> maybe if you want to keep the branding) >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 10:57 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net >>>>> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I understand the point. My main concern was in term of versioning (I >>>>> don’t >>>>>>> want to "block" ActiveMQ to do a 6, 7, 8 or whatever release). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry, but classic is something I don’t fully understand (maybe my >>>>> French >>>>>>> culture ;)). I don’t see what’s "classic" (or maybe in term of >>>>> "previous" >>>>>>> or "older") is. Maybe "vintage" (like classical music compare to house >>>>>>> music) ;) ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And, anyway, nobody is using "classic": for the users I know, they use >>>>>>> ActiveMQ and Artemis (not ActiveMQ Classic or ActiveMQ Artemis). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, if you agree to have: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis < >>>> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis> >>>>> <http://activemq.apache.org/artemis <http://activemq.apache.org/artemis >>>>>> >>>>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/activemq < >>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/activemq> < >>>> http://activemq.apache.org/activemq >>>>> <http://activemq.apache.org/activemq>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think it’s even better than introducing a new name, I agree. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then, I’m changing the proposal/question: agree to use activemq and >>>>>>> Artemis on website ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> JB >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le 19 mars 2021 à 15:48, Bruce Snyder <bruce.sny...@gmail.com >>>> <mailto: >>>>> bruce.sny...@gmail.com>> a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gary stated this well. I agree completely with all of his sentiments >>>>>>> here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't see the point to introducing yet another name as this will >>>>> muddy >>>>>>>> these waters even further, not clarify them. Artemis was meant to be >>>> a >>>>>>> code >>>>>>>> name until it matched ActiveMQ enough to be a drop-in replacement. I >>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>> believe that this goal has been achieved yet, has it? Is this still >>>> an >>>>>>>> active goal? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Classic is an appropriate and deliberate name that was being >>>> discussed >>>>> as >>>>>>>> far back as just prior to the HornetQ donation. If we start >>>> officially >>>>>>>> referring to it as ActiveMQ Classic, then we need to explain the >>>> intent >>>>>>>> behind this name via the website. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Agreed, the Classic stream needs a major version bump before those >>>>>>>> incompatible changes are introduced. Do this and move forward with >>>>> those >>>>>>>> incompatible changes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bruce >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 8:29 AM Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:gary.tu...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi JB, >>>>>>>>> I think "classic" is a good name precisely because of its meaning, >>>> it >>>>>>>>> reflects its value and is a good way to differentiate on the >>>> website. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But I don't think the classic stream should be limited in >>>> versioning. >>>>>>>>> If for good reason (a new incompatible openwire version/storage >>>>>>>>> incompatible change/large config update) it needs a major version >>>>>>>>> increment, then go for it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Artemis was always intended as a code name, a generic title, a >>>>>>>>> temporary moniker, till it could take on the activemq mantle, but it >>>>>>>>> does not have to be 6, it can be 10 or 20, or it can be ActiveMQ >>>>>>>>> Artemis. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't see any point in introducing another "brand" name, the >>>>>>>>> versioning will be sufficient if we want to consolidate on the >>>>>>>>> activemq name in the future, and the Artemis sub brand will be >>>>>>>>> sufficient if we don't. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to speak to Lucas, the plan for Artemis is to be be a better >>>> ActiveMQ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> kind regards, >>>>>>>>> gary. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 04:49, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net >>>>> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Like any Apache (and OpenSource) project, ActiveMQ "umbrella" >>>> project >>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> living and roadmap evolves. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Justin is right with the project history, but I think the initial >>>>>>> target >>>>>>>>> to "replace" ActiveMQ with Artemis evolves, due to the users. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Personally, I’m saying still lot of ActiveMQ users, not planning to >>>>>>>>> change to Artemis, and even brand new installation starts with >>>>> ActiveMQ >>>>>>>>> (not Artemis). >>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, in term of features, there are some gaps between >>>>> ActiveMQ >>>>>>>>> and Artemis IMHO. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think the mistake was to create a separated repo for Artemis: if >>>>>>>>> Artemis was ActiveMQ "master" branch at the time of the donation, >>>>> then, >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> update would be straight forward. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, clearly, IMHO, we have two completed separated projects between >>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ and Artemis, because the communities (both users and >>>>>>> contributors) >>>>>>>>> are not the same. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A possible path to that Artemis become Apache TLP (and so ActiveMQ >>>>>>>>> Artemis name), and ActiveMQ "classic" stays what he’s: Apache >>>>> ActiveMQ. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If the PMC don’t want to "move" as a TLP, then we should at least >>>>> give >>>>>>>>> space for the two subprojects in the ActiveMQ umbrella and clearly >>>>>>> identify >>>>>>>>> who is what. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Le 19 mars 2021 à 05:13, Tetreault, Lucas >>>>> <tetlu...@amazon.com.INVALID <mailto:tetlu...@amazon.com.INVALID> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Justin, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the additional context. As a newcomer, it seems to me >>>>> like >>>>>>>>> both ActiveMQ "Classic" and Artemis are alive and well. 6 years and >>>> 2 >>>>>>> major >>>>>>>>> versions in to development, is the goal and focus for Artemis still >>>> on >>>>>>>>> feature parity and becoming ActiveMQ 6? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> Lucas >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-03-18, 8:38 PM, "Justin Bertram" <jbert...@apache.org >>>>> <mailto:jbert...@apache.org>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. >>>> Do >>>>>>>>> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the >>>> sender >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> know the content is safe. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Lucas, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure you've been around the ActiveMQ community for very >>>>>>>>> long or >>>>>>>>>>> maybe you have been and forgot some of the history. In any case, >>>>>>>>> I'll >>>>>>>>>>> summarize briefly. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Over a decade ago Hiram Chirino, one of the original ActiveMQ >>>>>>>>> developers >>>>>>>>>>> and chair of the ActiveMQ PMC at the time, created a new broker >>>>>>>>> under the >>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ banner named Apollo. It was designed on a non-blocking >>>>>>>>>>> architecture for much better performance than the existing >>>> ActiveMQ >>>>>>>>>>> architecture [1]. After ActiveMQ Apollo 1.0 was released the >>>> stated >>>>>>>>> goal of >>>>>>>>>>> this project was for it to eventually be integrated with the >>>>>>>>> mainline >>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ code-base and serve as its replacement [2]. This fact >>>> was >>>>>>>>>>> advertised on the ActiveMQ website although there are no longer >>>> any >>>>>>>>>>> references to that since the website was redesigned & updated a >>>>>>>>> year or so >>>>>>>>>>> ago. For whatever reason Apollo never acquired the critical mass >>>>>>>>> necessary >>>>>>>>>>> to replace mainline ActiveMQ. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Then about 6 years ago the HornetQ code-base was donated to the >>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ >>>>>>>>>>> community and that donation was accepted with the goal of >>>> creating >>>>>>>>> the next >>>>>>>>>>> generation ActiveMQ broker that would eventually become version >>>> 6. >>>>>>>>> Since >>>>>>>>>>> that time work has steadily progressed on the Artemis code-base >>>> to >>>>>>>>> bring >>>>>>>>>>> sufficient feature parity with mainline ActiveMQ to allow users >>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> transition. Again, this has been communicated via the website and >>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>> support channels for the last several years. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For what it's worth, I hope that clarifies the current state of >>>>>>>>> affairs. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Justin >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2011/01/17/activemq-apollo-looking-impressive/ >>>>> < >>>>> >>>> https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2011/01/17/activemq-apollo-looking-impressive/ >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>>> >>>> https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2012/02/03/apache-apollo-1-0-released/ >>>>> <https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2012/02/03/apache-apollo-1-0-released/> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:02 PM Tetreault, Lucas >>>>>>>>>>> <tetlu...@amazon.com.invalid <mailto:tetlu...@amazon.com.invalid >>>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me like the core problem here is that there are two >>>>>>>>> distinct >>>>>>>>>>>> projects operating under one brand and it creates confusion. I >>>>> agree >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>> JB that the "ActiveMQ Classic" and "ActiveMQ 5" branding are not >>>>>>>>> ideal. >>>>>>>>>>>> However, I think that renaming it to ActiveMQ Leto will further >>>>>>>>> dilute the >>>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ brand and create more confusion for users. Why not just >>>>>>>>> "ActiveMQ" >>>>>>>>>>>> and "Artemis"? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> Lucas >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-03-18, 6:54 AM, "Jean-Baptiste Onofre" <j...@nanthrax.net >>>>> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. >>>>> Do >>>>>>>>>>>> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the >>>>> sender >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> know the content is safe. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <jbert...@apache.org >>>>> <mailto:jbert...@apache.org>> 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 < >>>>>>>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>> robbie.gemm...@gmail.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>>>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> perl -e 'print >>>>>>>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" >>>>> );' >>>>>>>> http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
