Have you got any work towards the linked proposals idea of refreshing the old 5.x docs etc on the website under its component area?
On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 05:23, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > 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.
