Hi, I agree and it's actually something we likely discussed while ago related to renaming as for me we have two really different subprojects (https://lists.apache.org/thread/f0rqkq01xgyogqownx38k1mdsy69lzvm).
IMHO, ActiveMQ should use 6.x, 7.x, 8.x; ... versioning (and so jump to 6.x now with Spring 6, Jakarta, and other breaking changes) and Artemis uses his versioning (2.x; ...). That's exactly why I proposed to use clear different naming for the community. So big +1 (as happy to see this discussion again as I started similar while ago without success, timing is probably better now). Regards JB On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 11:14 PM Christopher Shannon <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> 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.
