My personal two cents is I think of 5.x as ActiveMQ Classic. And the next gen is ActiveMQ Artemis which has its own versioning.
really it’s the Message outwards to user that just needs updating and being clear IMO. Cheers Mike Sent from my iPhone > On 15 Nov 2017, at 22:22, Christopher Shannon > <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Also, I should add that if a bunch of people think it's better to rename > Artemis to ActiveMQ 6 then that is fine too. My opinion about keeping it > as Artemis is it would be easier but if people feel strongly about making > it ActiveMQ 6 and want to do the work to rename everything that is fine > with me as well. > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Christopher Shannon < > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think it's pretty clear at this point that Artemis is the future. >> However, I don't know that renaming it to ActiveMQ 6 makes any sense as it >> would be a lot of work and more confusion. >> >> My opinion would be to just have the roadmap say Artemis is the future and >> recommended broker and drop plans to have an ActiveMQ 6 release. We can >> just keep using the current versioning that Artemis is already using. >> >> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>> On 11/15/2017 10:04 AM, Jiri Danek wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Justin Bertram <jbert...@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Ultimately I believe the decision is in the hands of the ActiveMQ PMC >>>>> [1]. >>>>> >>>>> Where can I find a list of PMC members for ActiveMQ? The closest I got >>>> to >>>> it is http://activemq.apache.org/team.html >>>> >>> The info for that is here: >>> https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?activemq >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Tim Bish >>> >>> >>
