On 26 March 2015 at 17:46, artnaseef <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > you are missing the point. I am not advocating that, I am just saying it is a possibility.
A 5.x broker and a 6.x (or next generation) activemq broker will be very different and they will co exist for as long as they need to. 5.x won't run out of version numbers any time soon. > Why is it important to you for HornetQ to take the ActiveMQ-6 name? > It is important to me that an official ActiveMQ 6.x (or next generation activemq) gets off the ground and is successful. Using the code donation as a starting point is our best bet in that regard and hence I think it makes sense to release it as 6.0.0.M1 I see it as the code donation making the ActiveMQ 6.x name. It is a code *grant* that we accepted, no strings attached. It is not *taking* anything.
