activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Guggi <daniel.gu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC3)
Date Sat, 28 Mar 2015 18:53:00 GMT
the links in the first post are dead - can we get "RC3" binaries from
somewhere?

can't wait to play around with it.

hope you guys find a conclusion soon and (all) commit on the next
generation of amq :)

ty


On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 26 March 2015 at 17:46, artnaseef <art@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> > Do you seriously think that would be wise?
> >
> > Now it sounds like your advocating that we *could* have two separate
> brokers
> > maintained, but just using the same exact name by skipping around major
> > version numbers.  I certainly will not back *that* plan.
> >
> > Honestly, this response confuses me.  I thought your primary argument is
> > that ActiveMQ needs a refresh.  Arguing that there's a way to continue
> the
> > ActiveMQ line in this way is just ... baffling.
> >
> you are missing the point. I am not advocating that, I am just saying
> it is a possibility.
>
> A 5.x broker and a 6.x (or next generation) activemq broker will be
> very different and they will co exist for as long as they need to.
> 5.x won't run out of version numbers any time soon.
>
>
> > Why is it important to you for HornetQ to take the ActiveMQ-6 name?
> >
> It is important to me that an official ActiveMQ 6.x (or next
> generation activemq) gets off the ground and is successful.
> Using the code donation as a starting point is our best bet in that
> regard and hence I think it makes sense to release it as 6.0.0.M1
> I see it as the code donation making the ActiveMQ 6.x name. It is a
> code *grant* that we accepted, no strings attached. It is not *taking*
> anything.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message