Sounds good - I recast my vote to +1
> On 5 Dec 2017, at 13:18, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Point taken. We should improve the migration doc the best we can. > > If we make this a blocking/mandatory task before a 6 release, would you > consider changing your vote to +1. (I would add this remark to the closing > vote and would add a blocking/mandatory JIRA so it wouldn’t be released > without working on it) > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:17 AM Rob Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [0] - without a clear migration path and tooling to assist existing users >> moving from ActiveMQ 5 to Artemis, we risk abandoning those users - who >> may then be forced to look at alternatives and abandon ActiveMQ all >> together. This could be counter productive to the original intent. >> >> >> >>> On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the >>> ActiveMQ project roadmap" >>> >>> linked here for convenience : >>> - >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html >>> - >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html >>> >>> >>> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming >> ActiveMQ 6. >>> >>> [+1] - agree >>> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason >>> [0] - neutral but go ahead >>> >>> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day. >>> >>> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote. >> >> -- > Clebert Suconic
