Jeff, That's a good point about Artemis possibly being 7.0, that's fine too.
This is nothing against Artemis, really it's just this release completely breaks everything and is not compatible at all so I really think it would be terrible to release it as 5.19.x as for the last 10+ years people have expected to mostly just upgrade from one 5.x version to the next without much issue. Chris On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 5:31 PM fpapon <fpa...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Make totally sense, especially about keeping the javax version > supported, so need to split in 2 major versions. > > Big +1 > > regards, > > François > > On 11/09/2023 23:14, 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. > > > -- > -- > François > >
