+1 to the -M1 naming, I think that captures intent perfectly.
On 23 March 2015 at 10:09, Andy Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > So I think the consensus is to go with ActiveMQ 6.0.0-M1 so we will go > ahead and cut a new RC in the next day or so. We will also add some > content the website so users are clear that currently there isn't > feature parity between ActiveMQ 5 and ActiveMQ 6. We will then raise > JIRA to map out a migration path post release. > > On 20/03/15 20:40, Clebert Suconic wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:25 PM, artnaseef <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Please help me to understand how this would go. >>> >>> We would use 6.0.0-M1, 6.0.0-M2, etc until when? Until we are ready to >>> declare that 6.0.0 is a replacement for 5.x? >>> >>> After that, then we simply drop the -M# (i.e. release the first 6.0.0)? >> >> Yeah.. That's exactly how I see it. >> >
