Great idea. Seem simpler too. +1 for adding -M1 On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > How is this any different than say CXF 2.7.x to CXF 3.0.x? Both versions > use the same maven coordinates. Or Karaf 2.x -> 3.x -> 4.x? > > My opinion is that if this is intended to eventually be a “6.0” of ActiveMQ, > then lets keep going that direction. That said, if it’s not ready to be a > full replacement, then give it a slightly different naming, like “6.0.0-M1” > for milestone 1 or similar. I guess that would be my preference. Until > we have all the migration issues hammered out and and feature replacements in > place, (and OSGi support) I’m kind uncomfortable calling it 6.0. However, > a "release milestone” along that path is still a good idea to get people > working on it. > > Dan > > >> On Mar 19, 2015, at 8:57 PM, artnaseef <[email protected]> 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. > > -- > Daniel Kulp > [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com >
-- Hiram Chirino Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. [email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
