Its funny you mentioned this...I was just having a side discussion about this with some others and I fully agree with you. This is a major change... as in break stuff change. I fully agree it should be considered 6.0. We really don't have a reservation system for number (IMHO). I dont have any issue with Artemis potentially being 7.0 when that decision is made. I think its extremely prudent to make AMQ 6.0 be this breaking change.
Thank you for beating to the punch on this and bringing it up. I was very close to writing a similar email as you. +1 for making the jakarta stuff 6.0. Jeff On 2023/09/11 21:14:29 Christopher Shannon wrote: > First, I realize that this thread is likely to cause a fight based on past > history and probably not go anywhere, but with the work being done > with Jakarta for AMQ 5.x I think it's time to at least bring up the > ActiveMQ 6.0 discussion. > > With all the breaking changes currently targeted for version 5.19.x, such > as the Jakarta switch from javax, requiring JDK 17, major Spring and Jetty > upgrades and now potentially major OSGi changes, it makes zero sense to me > to have this next AMQ version as version 5.19.0 as it's completely > incompatible with the previous version 5.18.x. Users are likely going to be > in for a rude awakening when trying to upgrade and will be quite confused > as to why so much is different. > > The Jakarta changes should really be a major version upgrade so that it's > much more clear to users that it's very different from the previous > version. Another major benefit of going with version 6.0 is that it frees > up the previous javax releases to continue on with 5.19 or 5.20 because we > will likely need to support the older javax releases for quite a while. > > Also, from my point of view it seems pretty clear that the original goal > for Artemis to become AMQ 6.0.0 is never going to happen. Artemis has had > its own branding and versioning for several years now and will likely > continue that way and not change so I don't really see that as a reason to > not bump AMQ 5.x to 6.x with all the major breaking changes. > > Anyways, I figure there won't be much agreement here but thought I should > at least throw it out there before we go and release 5.19.x with such major > breaking changes. >
