> At some point, it could well make sense to call the HornetQ release ActiveMQ 6 - but not yet. This has caused a lot of confusion- it should be called something else ??
>> On 19 Mar 2015, at 19:40, Kevin Burton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Actually, this is probably the right way to phrase it. Maybe just on the
>> HOME PAGE of AMQ 6 just have a call out.
>> I think it’s fair to work on a new broker because ActiveMQ 5 would need a
>> lot of work in a lot of areas to modernize it.
>> That said. It think the 5.x series should also be maintained for a while.
>> So maybe just having them clearly explained that they are different things.
>> Also, is Apollo dead and development officially moving to AMQ6 ? if so
>> perhaps the best strategy is to mark it as so.
>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:26 AM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> ActiveMQ *is* what we can only distinguish clearly right now as ActiveMQ
>>> The ActiveMQ 6 name was once used for Apollo and now it's used for HornetQ.
>>> Yes, it's confusing.
>>> Personally, I will be referring to the existing ActiveMQ
>>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq), and only that code base, as
>>> ActiveMQ -
>>> until we have a plan that somehow one replaces the other. If you catch me
>>> using "AMQ 6" or "AMQ 5" outside the discussion of naming, please smack me
>>> in the back of the head ;-).
>>> I'm sorry for your confusion. It is a major concern that you were confused
>>> and spent time and effort to work on HornetQ when you thought you were
>>> upgrading ActiveMQ.
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-6-0-0-required-Java-8-tp4693434p4693463.html >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
>> Location: *San Francisco, CA*
>> blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com >> … or check out my Google+ profile