the links in the first post are dead - can we get "RC3" binaries from somewhere?
can't wait to play around with it. hope you guys find a conclusion soon and (all) commit on the next generation of amq :) ty On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Gary Tully <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
