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 <mattr...@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 <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? >>> >>> >>> >> >
