On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 2:22 PM, 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.
I don't have a strong opinion on making it 6. to me it's just a matter that 6 would make it easier to send the same message. I wouldn't rename packages as I said on the other message... but I would change docs.. (The website will need to be changed regardless). > 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 >>> >>> >> -- Clebert Suconic
