I'm also curious about who gets to make the decision about what the future direction is for the project. Nominally it's probably "the community", but that's rather abstract, so I'd like to know what the process is by which the decision will be made and who gets to provide what inputs into the decision.
Tim On Nov 15, 2017 5:50 AM, "Justin Bertram" <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: A few recent interactions with confused users has caused me some concern about the clarity, or lack thereof, regarding the future of ActiveMQ. In short, I think users don't really understand where ActiveMQ is going in the future so they don't know which broker to use for new projects or if they should start the migration process for existing installations. In general I think it's extremely helpful for users to understand where a project is headed as it instills confidence and consolidates effort. There's been talk of ActiveMQ's "next generation" for awhile now. However, when you Google for "ActiveMQ next generation" [1] the first result is for Apollo, a project that has been "unofficially" declared dead [2]. The second result is for the Artemis migration guide, and the third result is for a mostly blank page about "ActiveMQ6" [3]. This is clearly a confusing message for the community and whether you're a die-hard fan of 5.x, sad that Apollo's dead, or excited about Artemis I hope we can agree that clarifying the future of ActiveMQ is important and necessary. In short, I think we really need a project road-map. Will effort be put into 5.x to address some of its short-comings so it can become a legitimate 6.x? If not, will Artemis become ActiveMQ 6? Are there other options here? Once consensus is reached here we should define related timelines. After that we can turn to the website which needs a face-lift plus updates to reflect our road-map. Justin [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=activemq+next+generation [2] http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html [3] http://activemq.apache.org/activemq6
