Re: Temporary Branch for ARTEMIS-780

From: "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> To: dev@activemq.apache.org Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 8:29:16 PM Subject: Re: Temporary Branch for ARTEMIS-780 On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 8:51 AM Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.com> wrote: > I think the JIRA itself p

Re: Encouraging more on-list discussions (was Re: Temporary Branch for ARTEMIS-780)

On 14 November 2016 at 16:00, John D. Ament wrote: > All, > > IMHO, anything that gets more discussions and more people talking on the > mailing lists is a good first step. I feel like we rarely ever hear from > Gao, Justin or Andy on list, would be nice to get them to

Re: Encouraging more on-list discussions (was Re: Temporary Branch for ARTEMIS-780)

All, IMHO, anything that gets more discussions and more people talking on the mailing lists is a good first step. I feel like we rarely ever hear from Gao, Justin or Andy on list, would be nice to get them to say hi every now and then :-) Of course, there's nothing that can be done to force

Re: Encouraging more on-list discussions (was Re: Temporary Branch for ARTEMIS-780)

John, Sure +1. Let's try to improve on this. The case in question, I had thought the creation of the JIRA was enough, to at the very least, kick off discussion with interested parties. I've tried to keep this updated with latest changes but, have probably focused too much on the code and not

Re: Encouraging more on-list discussions (was Re: Temporary Branch for ARTEMIS-780)

On the Apache Buildr project (and I also witnessed it on the Apache Camel project) there is open discussion of the roadmap and the objectives on the dev list. The board is also discussing having the board reports of projects being prepared in the open - making sure contributors see what the

Encouraging more on-list discussions (was Re: Temporary Branch for ARTEMIS-780)

All, Changing the title to be a bit more direct about the issue at hand (in my opinion). I think the main concern I have about ARTEMIS-780 is the implicit ramifications on creating a 2.0 release. Granted, I missed the original note, but then when it was mentioned in a further discussion as

Re: Temporary Branch for ARTEMIS-780

Hi John, Apologies for not getting to this sooner, I have taken some time out to write up more background , problems and what the proposal is. I'll add it to the JIRA as soon as I'm done. The crux of this change is adding the ability to define various destination types / behaviours (things like

Re: Temporary Branch for ARTEMIS-780

t; > - Original Message - > From: "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> > To: dev@activemq.apache.org > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 7:21:35 AM > Subject: Re: Temporary Branch for ARTEMIS-780 > > Hmm so I missed this the first go around. The note fr

Temporary Branch for ARTEMIS-780

All, I'm starting to look at the improvements around the addressing model (ARTEMIS-780) there's going to be a fair amount of change involved that may break certain parts of the broker (at least until it's fully completed). For this reason, I've created a separate branch "ARTEMIS-780" to house