+1, This would probably be a good time to update the website to a more modern design as well
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Rob Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >
