Not trying to push any directions here. But just wanted to point out that Artemis could just be a codename. That would still allow a next version to be whatever we want and change docs only.
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it's pretty clear at this point that Artemis is the future. > However, I don't know that renaming it to ActiveMQ 6 makes any sense as it > would be a lot of work and more confusion. > > My opinion would be to just have the roadmap say Artemis is the future and > recommended broker and drop plans to have an ActiveMQ 6 release. We can > just keep using the current versioning that Artemis is already using. > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On 11/15/2017 10:04 AM, Jiri Danek wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Justin Bertram <jbert...@redhat.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> Ultimately I believe the decision is in the hands of the ActiveMQ PMC > [1]. > >>> > >>> Where can I find a list of PMC members for ActiveMQ? The closest I got > to > >> it is http://activemq.apache.org/team.html > >> > > The info for that is here: > > https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?activemq > > > > > > -- > > Tim Bish > > > > > -- Clebert Suconic
