activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: HEADS-UP/DISCUSS Artemis 1.4.1
Date Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:40:11 GMT
I will just call it 1.5.0 to be on the safe side.. not more discussion needed :)

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Clebert Suconic
<clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm looking at a git log between 1.4.0 and HEAD, and from what I see,
> there are a few improvements that could be translated as either
> features/improvements or bugs.
>
> A few tweaks on the wording could change them into either bug or fix... e.g:
>
> Reloading Divert Support - Feature,
> Diverts are not reloaded = Bug
>
>
>
> The only real feature I could find so far was your commit here:
>
>
> commit 9163c679ef21e70ba94f54c9a1bed9a12ad6bcca
> Author: John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
> Date:   Sun Jul 31 22:12:50 2016 -0400
>     ARTEMIS-756 introduce CDI based integration for Artemis.  Includes
> integration tests on both Weld and OWB.
>
>
>
> If you'd like I can call it 1.5.0 based on this change. it's up to you
> really since it's your commit. WDYT?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:09 AM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org> wrote:
>> Is there a changelog of whats going in? If its all bug fixes, 1.4.1 makes
>> sense.  if its feature, I would think 1.5.0 is more appropriate.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:52 AM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I want to make a release early next week. (as I have pointed a few weeks
>>> ago).
>>>
>>>
>>> I will release from master... there are a few new packages added
>>> around OSGI, but I was still considering calling 1.4.1, and reserve
>>> 1.5.0 for a few more major features that will change the broker
>>> itself.
>>>
>>>
>>> If no objections I will call it 1.4.1, but I wouldn't mind calling it
>>> 1.5.0 if anyone objects.
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Mime
View raw message