Even after 6.0 is released (using any of these development paths), 5.x and 6.x will continue to coexists for a long while as many folks wouldn’t want to move for one reason or another. And that’s normal thing in this kind of projects. For example take a look at Tomcat, where at this moment you can download 6.x, 7.x and 8.x (and 9.x is coming), all active. The main thing to do is to document all this properly, so users can make informed decisions on what they want/need.
Regards -- Dejan Bosanac ---------------------- Red Hat, Inc. [email protected] Twitter: @dejanb Blog: http://sensatic.net ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/ On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Timothy Bish <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/20/2015 11:17 AM, Daniel Kulp 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? >> > +1 was wondering the same thing > > 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 >> > +1 milestone releases would seem to make it clear where it's going > > >> 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. >>> >> > > -- > Tim Bish > Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc. > [email protected] | www.redhat.com > skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121 > blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/ > >
