I agree. We have had breaking changes in the 5.x series, and that's bad. We may not be perfect in maintaining semantic versioning, but it is important.
The Jakarta changes are definitely a major concern if we stick to 5.x. Is there any reason to avoid using 6.x? I looked around to see if we ever had any artifacts released with that version number and didn't find any... Art On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 3:05 PM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > >
