Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 49296BA0B for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 21:05:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 49055 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jan 2012 21:05:21 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 49030 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jan 2012 21:05:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 49022 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jan 2012 21:05:20 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:05:20 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.3 required=5.0 tests=SPF_SOFTFAIL,URI_HEX X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: softfail (nike.apache.org: transitioning domain of martin@attivio.com does not designate 216.139.236.26 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.139.236.26] (HELO sam.nabble.com) (216.139.236.26) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:05:14 +0000 Received: from joe.nabble.com ([192.168.236.139]) by sam.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RiY0z-0004FX-AI for users@activemq.apache.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:04:53 -0800 Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:04:53 -0800 (PST) From: mserrano To: users@activemq.apache.org Message-ID: <1325711093298-4262847.post@n4.nabble.com> Subject: should I use trunk or patch 5.5.1? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi, I need the fix for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3542. Should I try to patch 5.5.1 up as needed to include the fixes for it? Or should I use trunk? I'm not sure how stable trunk is or how close 5.6 is to shipping. Thanks, Martin p.s. I'm trying to deal with a situation where I'm using master/slave plus networked brokers. When the master fails (or is shutdown shortly after startup), the associated slave does not pick up the consumers that are registered elsewhere on the network. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/should-I-use-trunk-or-patch-5-5-1-tp4262847p4262847.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.