Now here lies the problem.
I agree that it captures the intent well. That also creates an
expectation from the users and sort of a promise from the activemq pmc,
amplified by the vendors' marketing (well, exactly one in this case).
The same promise has been made with apollo.
I am less concerned with the rewrite. To me that is not an issue. If
smaller or larger parts are rewritten but maintain (reasonable) feature
parity, it is an evolution of the same project.
I am however more concerned with the ability of the activemq6
podling/subproject to build a diverse community. So far I don't see
encouraging signs. My fear is that the result will be alienation of the
more diverse activemq 5.x community (still less diverse than it should
be) and turn activemq into a one company show.
So far it looks it looks to me that the perception card was played, with
the choice of name. It *sounds* like activemq6 the evolution of
activemq. How will the current pmc ensure that this is really gonna be
the case? (fwiw, I do get questions about the relationship between amq6
and 5 already, and for the life of me I don't know how to answer).
Choosing a different name, as I think Rob suggested too, would have made
this a moot point.
My $0.02,
Hadrian
On 03/23/2015 10:07 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
+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.
