That makes lot of sense to me ! We will have: - ActiveMQ 5.18.x - ActiveMQ 6.x.x - ActiveMQ 7.x.x - ActiveMQ Artemis 2.x - ActiveMQ Artemis 3.x
So, I propose to have two "spaces" on website: http://activemq.apache.org/activemq http://activemq.apache.org/artemis The index.html will list the two spaces and users will go to one or another. Thoughts ? Regards JB On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 3:08 PM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ActiveMQ 5.x + 6.x, ActiveMQ Artemis 2.x yes...i.e no change. > > On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 13:34, Francois Papon > <francois.pa...@openobject.fr> wrote: > > > > So next will be ActiveMQ 5.x, ActiveMQ 6.x and Artemis? > > > > On 12/09/2023 14:14, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > > That is how I refer to them, or more fully as ActiveMQ 5.x like below, > > > and ActiveMQ Artemis. > > > > > > Same as last time this was discussed, I dont consider "Classic" part > > > of the actual name, just a reflective description label, quoted for a > > > reason. > > > > > > On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 12:48, fpapon <fpa...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> Why not simply ActiveMQ and Artemis? > > >> > > >> This is how people used to name the 2 projects, I never eared someone > > >> say "ActiveMQ Classic". > > >> > > >> regards, > > >> > > >> François > > >> > > >> On 12/09/2023 13:07, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > >>> 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. > > >>>>>> > > >> -- > > >> -- > > >> François > > >>
