Jeff, I don't think anyone is proposing killing off 5.x at this point, but just clarifying what the future is in terms of Artemis and ActiveMQ 6. I do think we need to retire Apollo though.
Chris On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:41 PM, jgenender <jgenen...@apache.org> wrote: > I'll throw in my .02 on this... > > I think the discussion should be here and in the open and I am confident > the > PMC will decide based on the community, and not on their personal view. > > I also think we need to be very careful in any discussion about sun-setting > AMQ 5.X. "Classic" as it has been discussed still is the #1 installed MQ > in > the world. It is most certainly heavily used, still much more so than > Artemis (at least from my view). As long as the community is strong, AMQ > 5.X should continue forward. > > I am looking forward to Artemis becoming ActiveMQ 6. IMHO, it should be > called ActiveMQ because I believe that was the original intent... that > Artemis was the code name, and it would be ActiveMQ 6 once it hit 1.0 (at > least that's what I thought was going to happen). If we want people to > take > Artemis as a part of ActiveMQ, and we want to up its game regarding usage > and community, I really think keeping it in the ActiveMQ lineup is really > the way to go. I hopefully look forward to that as I really want to see a > lot more installations of the product. :-) > > Just my usual .02. > > Jeff > > > > -- > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User- > f2341805.html >
