Agree with Christian. It's a bit unfortunate. Regards JB
On Dec 8, 2016, 07:53, at 07:53, Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net> 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 <mattr...@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? >> >> > > >-- >-- >Christian Schneider >http://www.liquid-reality.de ><https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.liquid-reality.de> > >Open Source Architect >http://www.talend.com ><https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.talend.com>
