I’m +1 on starting the process of updating the websites and such to promote Artemis more and working toward getting it ready to become 6. That definitely means getting a roadmap started (nice job Bruce!) and doing some level of gap analysis between it and AMQ5.
I personally think the “adoption argument” is bull shit. That’s like saying the Tomcat community cannot release Tomcat 9 until the adoption of "Tomcat 9 (beta)” becomes significant. That’s just dumb. So it really comes down to features and documentation/migration. Again, get a roadmap in place that documents what needs to be done, get docs and such updated, promote it as an alpha/beta/whatever to get those that are willing to test it to do so, and when it’s ready, we release as 6.0. (and, IMO, it doesn’t need to be perfect to be 6.0. We can always spin a 6.0.1 or 6.1 if folks run into issues that haven’t been found) Dan > On Dec 4, 2017, at 3:32 PM, 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. -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
