Well I think you still run into the same confusion if you call it ActiveMQ 6. Why not give it a code name like activemq-<codename> until it's ready to take over as ActiveMQ 6. I do agree with starting at 1.0.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, I can see how using the same coordinates could cause some confusion, > > What about using org.apache.activemq-6, with version starting at ="1.0" > > what do you think?' > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote: >> That is very true. -1 as well. >> Hadrian >> >> On 03/19/2015 08:57 PM, artnaseef wrote: >>> >>> I will continue to look at this as I can find time. >>> >>> One question I'm seeing now - the artifact naming is using activemq- for >>> the >>> prefix, and a greater concern is the overlap of the artifacts like the >>> followin: >>> >>> * activemq-ra >>> * activemq-web >>> >>> I'm concerned that Maven central will have two sets of artifacts with the >>> activemq name, which will lead to confusion for users. And, I'm >>> especially >>> concerned that two totally different artifacts with the same name will be >>> in >>> maven central. >>> >>> Until HornetQ becomes a replacement for ActiveMQ and we decide to stop >>> maintaining ActiveMQ, I'm concerned that we need to avoid this type of >>> confusion. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693512.html >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >> > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic > http://community.jboss.org/people/[email protected] > http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com -- Hiram Chirino Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. [email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
