+1 (non-binding)
> On Jul 10, 2023, at 9:45 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Justin,
>
> It has been discussed but not the name specifically.
>
> As we use apache/activemq-artemis, I thought "logical" to use
> apache/activemq (but maybe activemq-classic makes more sense).
>
> I'm not sure we will be able to use apache/activemq/classic and
> apache/activemq/artemis, but we can definitely use
> apache/activemq-classic as apache/activemq-artemis.
>
> I can rename right now.
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 3:57 PM Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> This weekend JB announced [1] the availability of official Docker images
>> for ActiveMQ "Classic" in the "apache/activemq" namespace [2].
>>
>> Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall (and can't find) any discussion of
>> or notification about this. Users will certainly expect images for both
>> "Classic" and Artemis so my concern is regarding the namespace. If both
>> "Classic" and Artemis share the apache/activemq namespace directly then
>> there may eventually be version number conflicts and there certainly will
>> be confusion about which version is which.
>>
>> Before these images are widely adopted I think the namespace should be
>> clarified just as it is on the website so that ActiveMQ "Classic" uses
>> "apache/activemq/classic" and ActiveMQ Artemis uses
>> "apache/activemq/artemis".
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/4cqbm0gsbj184vrp13yorcd2rrbdcsmx
>> [2] https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/activemq/tags
