Lets keep the discussion copied on the dev list as well, in case there is someone subscribing only to the dev list.
For those who do not follow the user's list.. this link should provide some context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html;cid=1511214285551-676 On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Christopher Shannon <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jeff, > > I don't think anyone is proposing killing off 5.x at this point, but just > clarifying what the future is in terms of Artemis and ActiveMQ 6. I do > think we need to retire Apollo though. > > Chris > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:41 PM, jgenender <jgenen...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I'll throw in my .02 on this... >> >> I think the discussion should be here and in the open and I am confident >> the >> PMC will decide based on the community, and not on their personal view. >> >> I also think we need to be very careful in any discussion about sun-setting >> AMQ 5.X. "Classic" as it has been discussed still is the #1 installed MQ >> in >> the world. It is most certainly heavily used, still much more so than >> Artemis (at least from my view). As long as the community is strong, AMQ >> 5.X should continue forward. >> >> I am looking forward to Artemis becoming ActiveMQ 6. IMHO, it should be >> called ActiveMQ because I believe that was the original intent... that >> Artemis was the code name, and it would be ActiveMQ 6 once it hit 1.0 (at >> least that's what I thought was going to happen). If we want people to >> take >> Artemis as a part of ActiveMQ, and we want to up its game regarding usage >> and community, I really think keeping it in the ActiveMQ lineup is really >> the way to go. I hopefully look forward to that as I really want to see a >> lot more installations of the product. :-) >> >> Just my usual .02. >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User- >> f2341805.html >> -- Clebert Suconic
