Also, I should add that if a bunch of people think it's better to rename Artemis to ActiveMQ 6 then that is fine too. My opinion about keeping it as Artemis is it would be easier but if people feel strongly about making it ActiveMQ 6 and want to do the work to rename everything that is fine with me as well.
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:41 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 >> >> >
