Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <aa491561-d351-a960-9d3d-41e104b3df97@gmail.com>
References: <a87cc597-80d5-037d-8aa5-ca0e1b12f8fe@gmail.com>
 <CAH6_LN=jfv1SA9fjzN=2-fbBdAkqYypNv71=NMauXX5Zy81yog@mail.gmail.com> <aa491561-d351-a960-9d3d-41e104b3df97@gmail.com>
From: Andy Taylor <andy.tayls67@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 16:05:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CAA9ykMLXC7=-YF-UZXTiERsmuyc0OcNHFHZxTE8yHFw+fFxrSg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis 2.0.0 target features
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1144176449f57a054327ce08
archived-at: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 16:06:32 -0000

--001a1144176449f57a054327ce08
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I think Christian's issue is not with feature parity being a marketing goal
but the fact that you aligned a major bump with a feature set rather than
API changes etc.

we have had this conversation a couple of times and altho its a good idea
the discussion just goes of on all tangents since everyone wants different
new functionality. I would suggest raising a Jira per enhancement and
discuss each individually.

On 8 December 2016 at 15:50, Matt Pavlovich <mattrpav@gmail.com> wrote:

> Christian-
>
> Are there any features or API breaking changes you'd like to see? My #1
> goal is to kick off a conversation.
>
> I don't think setting goals like "feature parity w/ ActiveMQ 5.x" is a
> marketing goal. I think it is a user-centric goal. Users use features. For
> Artemis to be a suitable upgrade for ActiveMQ 5.x, a set of features need
> to be present. My intention with this thread is to discuss and prioritize
> those features.
>
> -Matt
>
>
>
> On 12/8/16 1:52 AM, Christian Schneider wrote:
>
>> As artemis is an open source project I would not use a marketing like
>> reason for a new major version (like a certain feature set).
>> Instead I would use a major version to remove deprecated interfaces. So
>> basically to remove stuff in a way that might be incompatible to older
>> clients.
>> For pure feature additions a minor version should be technically good
>> enough.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> 2016-12-07 22:29 GMT+01:00 Matt Pavlovich <mattrpav@gmail.com>:
>>
>> *** Re-sending w/ [DISCUSS] subject tag
>>>
>>> Kicking off a discussion on what folks would like to see in 2.0.0 release
>>> for Artemis. My thought is that we should target ActiveMQ 5.x feature
>>> parity in an effort to solidify Artemis in the product sense. I will
>>> detail
>>> out specifics from my previous note on 5.x-Artemis feature gaps.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

--001a1144176449f57a054327ce08--