Huge +1 Have just worked through a few Jakarta changes and it is a lot of things you need to change.
Sent from my pressure cooker. > On Sep 11, 2023, at 22:23, 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.
