I think the main thing anyone disagreed with was your proposed Leto name being an improvement on things as they already were/are. There was already a dedicated area on the website even then, it just still doesnt contain much except the download page and a 'table of contents' documentation page that just links back out to the various 'mess' as you put it. I dont recall anyone opposing improving things there even without the proposed name change.
On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 10:03, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > As we didn’t have consensus I paused on this one. But happy to prepare a > formal website PR with dedicated area etc. > > Regards > JB > > Le mar. 12 sept. 2023 à 10:54, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > Have you got any work towards the linked proposals idea of refreshing > > the old 5.x docs etc on the website under its component area? > > > > On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 05:23, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I agree and it's actually something we likely discussed while ago > > > related to renaming as for me we have two really different subprojects > > > (https://lists.apache.org/thread/f0rqkq01xgyogqownx38k1mdsy69lzvm). > > > > > > IMHO, ActiveMQ should use 6.x, 7.x, 8.x; ... versioning (and so jump > > > to 6.x now with Spring 6, Jakarta, and other breaking changes) and > > > Artemis uses his versioning (2.x; ...). > > > That's exactly why I proposed to use clear different naming for the > > community. > > > > > > So big +1 (as happy to see this discussion again as I started similar > > > while ago without success, timing is probably better now). > > > > > > Regards > > > JB > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 11:14 PM Christopher Shannon > > > <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > First, I realize that this thread is likely to cause a fight based on > > past > > > > history and probably not go anywhere, but with the work being done > > > > with Jakarta for AMQ 5.x I think it's time to at least bring up the > > > > ActiveMQ 6.0 discussion. > > > > > > > > With all the breaking changes currently targeted for version 5.19.x, > > such > > > > as the Jakarta switch from javax, requiring JDK 17, major Spring and > > Jetty > > > > upgrades and now potentially major OSGi changes, it makes zero sense > > to me > > > > to have this next AMQ version as version 5.19.0 as it's completely > > > > incompatible with the previous version 5.18.x. Users are likely going > > to be > > > > in for a rude awakening when trying to upgrade and will be quite > > confused > > > > as to why so much is different. > > > > > > > > The Jakarta changes should really be a major version upgrade so that > > it's > > > > much more clear to users that it's very different from the previous > > > > version. Another major benefit of going with version 6.0 is that it > > frees > > > > up the previous javax releases to continue on with 5.19 or 5.20 > > because we > > > > will likely need to support the older javax releases for quite a while. > > > > > > > > Also, from my point of view it seems pretty clear that the original > > goal > > > > for Artemis to become AMQ 6.0.0 is never going to happen. Artemis has > > had > > > > its own branding and versioning for several years now and will likely > > > > continue that way and not change so I don't really see that as a > > reason to > > > > not bump AMQ 5.x to 6.x with all the major breaking changes. > > > > > > > > Anyways, I figure there won't be much agreement here but thought I > > should > > > > at least throw it out there before we go and release 5.19.x with such > > major > > > > breaking changes. > >
