Same thoughts as last time you proposed it really. Adding Leto would not be an improvement for me, more actually the reverse. I think it's fine as it is, ActiveMQ 5.x / 6.x, adding Leto would be more confusing. Describing something as 'classic' is a pretty normal / well-known thing, I think a user even noted that on the original thread.
On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 10:25, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > Is it a good time to talk about ActiveMQ "Something" instead of > "Classic" ? (I hate this "classic" naming (it sounds weird to me) and > most of people uses simply Artemis and ActiveMQ as name) > > I proposed ActiveMQ Artemis and ActiveMQ Leto (Leto is the mother of > Artemis in Greek mythology) to have a clear distinction between the > two subprojects. Thoughts ? :) > > If it's too "sensible", please ignore :) > > Regards > JB > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 11:11 AM Gary Tully <gtu...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > makes sense, but please keep a clear distinction - activemq classic 6.0.0 > > activemq X may still evolve to combine the best of both. > > > > On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 22:15, 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. > > >
