I agree a major bump should only be required when breakages appear in APIs or incompatability of existing client applications. That doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about what features people would like in upcoming releases.
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Agree with Christian. It's a bit unfortunate. > What is unfortunate? The purpose of proposing 2.0.0,as previously discussed on other threads, is not for the introduction of new features, it's to address breakages in APIs as a result of core model refactoring. > > 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=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e > 46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.liquid-reality.de> > > > >Open Source Architect > >http://www.talend.com > ><https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e > 46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.talend.com> >
