Although I do not have a problem with naming it ActiveMQ 6, given al the discussion I agree this is the best option going forward, so +1 (non-binding).
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 4:51 AM, Ninad Sheth <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > On Apr 11, 2015 10:57 PM, "Bruce Snyder" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > Bruce > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Hiram Chirino <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Lots of confusion has occurred since we did not use a code name for > > > the code donation from the start. Everyone refers to it as HornetQ > > > which adds to the Trademark confusions. Also the current state of the > > > code is not ready to become ActiveMQ 6. We can figure out what the > > > code name should be later with community and trademarks input. > > > > > > Please choose an option: > > > > > > [ ] +1 : Rename the hornetq code grant source code from ActiveMQ 6 to > > > an ActiveMQ ${codename} > > > [ ] -1 : No don't rename > > > [ ] 0 : No preference > > > > > > Vote is open for 72 hours. > > > > > > -- > > > Hiram Chirino > > > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. > > > [email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com > > > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > perl -e 'print > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' > > > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ > > Blog: http://bruceblog.org/ > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder > > >
