Do you seriously think that would be wise? Now it sounds like your advocating that we *could* have two separate brokers maintained, but just using the same exact name by skipping around major version numbers. I certainly will not back *that* plan.
Honestly, this response confuses me. I thought your primary argument is that ActiveMQ needs a refresh. Arguing that there's a way to continue the ActiveMQ line in this way is just ... baffling. Why is it important to you for HornetQ to take the ActiveMQ-6 name? -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-6-0-0-tp4692911p4693865.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
