In that case, is it still very important for ActiveMQ 6.0.0 to have "all
the migration issues hammered out and and feature replacements in place"?
--
Weiqi Gao
On 3/20/2015 10:48 AM, Dejan Bosanac wrote:
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/
