Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-activemq-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 61163 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2007 19:18:49 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 23 Jan 2007 19:18:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 8576 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jan 2007 19:18:55 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-activemq-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 8556 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jan 2007 19:18:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact activemq-dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 8547 invoked by uid 99); 23 Jan 2007 19:18:54 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:18:54 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [208.176.63.108] (HELO ext1-chi.ldsys.net) (208.176.63.108) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:18:45 -0800 Received: from [192.168.100.3] (200-150-162-71.interair.com.br [200.150.162.71]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ext1-chi.ldsys.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 521E3B8018 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:18:23 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <45B65F78.4050300@ldsys.net> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:18:16 -0200 From: "Christopher G. Stach II" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061219) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: change ActiveMQ 4.2 to ActiveMQ 5.0 References: <709D46BD-D771-4A36-AF2F-9BA981315F04@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Rob Davies wrote: > Hi Brian, > > this isn't exactly true - we have always incremented the major version > number with wire protocol changes when they are not backward compatible > - but it's erroneous to assume that there is a casual link between the > two - its just been coincidental to date. > > cheers, > > Rob Is 5.0 going to be a requirement? If so, does that mean finally tossing backport-util-concurrent? -- Christopher G. Stach II