You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> on 2015/08/12 02:04:30 UTC
[HEADS-UP/Discussion] Artemis: Planning a release soon
I believe we should be ready for a release the end of this week, early
next week.
I was going to call it 1.0.1 since my original plan was to keep
calilng these 1.0.1, 1.0.2, ... 1.0.n until the JIRAs on the release
1.1.0 were fixed.
however since the addition of the first MQTT protocol, that makes it a
new / major feature. I'm not sure we should call it 1.0.1 or 1.1.0
now.
We have also fixed logs of bugs.. and I'm currently doing some work on
examples (adding an openwire example and doing some work on open wire)
There are a lot of fixes around openwire as well.
Any ideas on the release name?
Re: [HEADS-UP/Discussion] Artemis: Planning a release soon
Posted by Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>.
1.0.1 is fine I think
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 01:04 Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe we should be ready for a release the end of this week, early
> next week.
>
>
> I was going to call it 1.0.1 since my original plan was to keep
> calilng these 1.0.1, 1.0.2, ... 1.0.n until the JIRAs on the release
> 1.1.0 were fixed.
>
>
> however since the addition of the first MQTT protocol, that makes it a
> new / major feature. I'm not sure we should call it 1.0.1 or 1.1.0
> now.
>
>
> We have also fixed logs of bugs.. and I'm currently doing some work on
> examples (adding an openwire example and doing some work on open wire)
>
>
> There are a lot of fixes around openwire as well.
>
> Any ideas on the release name?
>
Re: [HEADS-UP/Discussion] Artemis: Planning a release soon
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
My recommendation is to use semantic versioning and stick with it:
* x.y.z
* z = bug fixes only
* y = any new features or changes to existing features
* x = any backward compatibility loss in APIs / usage of the product
With that said, whatever approach is used, let's make clear guidelines and
stick with it.
The biggest advantage of sticking with semantic versioning is it's
wide-spread use in the industry, with maven, and in the open source
community. For example, IIUC, maven will allow a dependency upgrade at the
minor version level but not at the major version level (when there are two
dependency chains leading to different versions of the same artifact).
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/HEADS-UP-Discussion-Artemis-Planning-a-release-soon-tp4700793p4701053.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [HEADS-UP/Discussion] Artemis: Planning a release soon
Posted by Clebert <cl...@gmail.com>.
. To be honest I
> guess it doesn't matter if it's 1
> 0.1 or 1.1 but to me 1.1 implies a milestone of some sort has been reached.
The current branch has Mqtt and lots of improvements compared to 1.0.0. It's not just a minor update.
So it is a milestone to me.
Anyways. Users are more likely to look at major updates than patch releases.
If this was just bug fixing the it should be a patch release I agree.
>
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:07 Clebert <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Say you put this as 1.0.1. A month from now there is a bug fix and an
>> user don't want all the updates from 1.0.2 on his production env. What
>> would call it? 1.0.1.1?
>>
>> These releases are production ready and not beta.
>>
>> We can promote it to 2.0.0 when we decide we have a whole completion of
>> desires features and beyond.
>>
>> I originally proposed 1.0.1 but I have to agree it gets confusing on
>> calling these minor updates.
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 13, 2015, at 13:03, Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have to disagree. We haven't really done a real major release. This
>> first
>>> one was for ip clearance and we will be adding new functionality in every
>>> release and we don't want to end up at 1.20 before we know it. To me 1.1
>>> will be the first release where we have some sort of feature parity with
>>> activemq.
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:49 Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ok, we will do 1.1.0 (You convinced me.. through twitter actually ;)
>> )...
>>>>
>>>> thinking again 1.0.1 makes it looks too minor... and there is a lot of
>>>> work done on artemis for this release, thanks for all the
>>>> contributions... It's really nice seeing great contributions here...
>>>> thanks everybody. (I can't name them all)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would like to be the release manager for this release, but I won't
>>>> be around next week, otherwise I would start the process sooner, so i
>>>> will do it in 2 weeks possibly as a heads up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, it would be nice people trying out and give us feedback on
>>>> two things from master: *
>>>> - try out MQTT. There's a small example under ./examples/protocols/mqtt
>>>> - look at our improved examples under ./examples (on both distro and
>>>> source)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * {
>>>> # how to build master:
>>>> git clone https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis.git artemis
>>>> cd artemis
>>>> mvn install
>>>> cd
>> artemis-distribution/target/apache-artemis-1.0.1-SNAPSHOT-bin/apache-artemis-1.0.1-SNAPSHOT/
>>>>
>>>> # ^^ That is the distribution.
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:53 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> I think 1.1.0 is better.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe here in the start where more new functions is added / ported
>>>>> from AMQ 5.x then the upcoming releases are IMHO more fitted as new
>>>>> minor releases, than patch releases.
>>>>>
>>>>> And then when Artemis has a great set of features in 1.x, then
>>>>> dedicated patch releases could be done which are more careful selected
>>>>> bug fixes etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Clebert Suconic
>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I believe we should be ready for a release the end of this week, early
>>>>>> next week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was going to call it 1.0.1 since my original plan was to keep
>>>>>> calilng these 1.0.1, 1.0.2, ... 1.0.n until the JIRAs on the release
>>>>>> 1.1.0 were fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> however since the addition of the first MQTT protocol, that makes it a
>>>>>> new / major feature. I'm not sure we should call it 1.0.1 or 1.1.0
>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have also fixed logs of bugs.. and I'm currently doing some work on
>>>>>> examples (adding an openwire example and doing some work on open wire)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are a lot of fixes around openwire as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any ideas on the release name?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Claus Ibsen
>>>>> -----------------
>>>>> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
>>>>> Camel in Action 2nd edition: http://www.manning.com/ibsen2
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>
Re: [HEADS-UP/Discussion] Artemis: Planning a release soon
Posted by Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>.
Using the same argument say in 10 months there were 1.1 thru to 1.10
versions released then a bug fix would need applying to 10 versions. Yes
Artemis is production ready as it's matured as hornetq, but it's not
production ready with regard to activemq functionality. To be honest I
guess it doesn't matter if it's 1
0.1 or 1.1 but to me 1.1 implies a milestone of some sort has been reached.
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:07 Clebert <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Say you put this as 1.0.1. A month from now there is a bug fix and an
> user don't want all the updates from 1.0.2 on his production env. What
> would call it? 1.0.1.1?
>
> These releases are production ready and not beta.
>
> We can promote it to 2.0.0 when we decide we have a whole completion of
> desires features and beyond.
>
> I originally proposed 1.0.1 but I have to agree it gets confusing on
> calling these minor updates.
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 2015, at 13:03, Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have to disagree. We haven't really done a real major release. This
> first
> > one was for ip clearance and we will be adding new functionality in every
> > release and we don't want to end up at 1.20 before we know it. To me 1.1
> > will be the first release where we have some sort of feature parity with
> > activemq.
> >
> >> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:49 Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> ok, we will do 1.1.0 (You convinced me.. through twitter actually ;)
> )...
> >>
> >> thinking again 1.0.1 makes it looks too minor... and there is a lot of
> >> work done on artemis for this release, thanks for all the
> >> contributions... It's really nice seeing great contributions here...
> >> thanks everybody. (I can't name them all)
> >>
> >>
> >> I would like to be the release manager for this release, but I won't
> >> be around next week, otherwise I would start the process sooner, so i
> >> will do it in 2 weeks possibly as a heads up.
> >>
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, it would be nice people trying out and give us feedback on
> >> two things from master: *
> >> - try out MQTT. There's a small example under ./examples/protocols/mqtt
> >> - look at our improved examples under ./examples (on both distro and
> >> source)
> >>
> >>
> >> * {
> >> # how to build master:
> >> git clone https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis.git artemis
> >> cd artemis
> >> mvn install
> >> cd
> >>
> artemis-distribution/target/apache-artemis-1.0.1-SNAPSHOT-bin/apache-artemis-1.0.1-SNAPSHOT/
> >>
> >> # ^^ That is the distribution.
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:53 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Hi
> >>>
> >>> I think 1.1.0 is better.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe here in the start where more new functions is added / ported
> >>> from AMQ 5.x then the upcoming releases are IMHO more fitted as new
> >>> minor releases, than patch releases.
> >>>
> >>> And then when Artemis has a great set of features in 1.x, then
> >>> dedicated patch releases could be done which are more careful selected
> >>> bug fixes etc.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Clebert Suconic
> >>> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> I believe we should be ready for a release the end of this week, early
> >>>> next week.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I was going to call it 1.0.1 since my original plan was to keep
> >>>> calilng these 1.0.1, 1.0.2, ... 1.0.n until the JIRAs on the release
> >>>> 1.1.0 were fixed.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> however since the addition of the first MQTT protocol, that makes it a
> >>>> new / major feature. I'm not sure we should call it 1.0.1 or 1.1.0
> >>>> now.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> We have also fixed logs of bugs.. and I'm currently doing some work on
> >>>> examples (adding an openwire example and doing some work on open wire)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> There are a lot of fixes around openwire as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> Any ideas on the release name?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Claus Ibsen
> >>> -----------------
> >>> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> >>> Camel in Action 2nd edition: http://www.manning.com/ibsen2
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
> >>
>
Re: [HEADS-UP/Discussion] Artemis: Planning a release soon
Posted by Clebert <cl...@gmail.com>.
Say you put this as 1.0.1. A month from now there is a bug fix and an user don't want all the updates from 1.0.2 on his production env. What would call it? 1.0.1.1?
These releases are production ready and not beta.
We can promote it to 2.0.0 when we decide we have a whole completion of desires features and beyond.
I originally proposed 1.0.1 but I have to agree it gets confusing on calling these minor updates.
> On Aug 13, 2015, at 13:03, Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have to disagree. We haven't really done a real major release. This first
> one was for ip clearance and we will be adding new functionality in every
> release and we don't want to end up at 1.20 before we know it. To me 1.1
> will be the first release where we have some sort of feature parity with
> activemq.
>
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:49 Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ok, we will do 1.1.0 (You convinced me.. through twitter actually ;) )...
>>
>> thinking again 1.0.1 makes it looks too minor... and there is a lot of
>> work done on artemis for this release, thanks for all the
>> contributions... It's really nice seeing great contributions here...
>> thanks everybody. (I can't name them all)
>>
>>
>> I would like to be the release manager for this release, but I won't
>> be around next week, otherwise I would start the process sooner, so i
>> will do it in 2 weeks possibly as a heads up.
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile, it would be nice people trying out and give us feedback on
>> two things from master: *
>> - try out MQTT. There's a small example under ./examples/protocols/mqtt
>> - look at our improved examples under ./examples (on both distro and
>> source)
>>
>>
>> * {
>> # how to build master:
>> git clone https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis.git artemis
>> cd artemis
>> mvn install
>> cd
>> artemis-distribution/target/apache-artemis-1.0.1-SNAPSHOT-bin/apache-artemis-1.0.1-SNAPSHOT/
>>
>> # ^^ That is the distribution.
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:53 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I think 1.1.0 is better.
>>>
>>> Maybe here in the start where more new functions is added / ported
>>> from AMQ 5.x then the upcoming releases are IMHO more fitted as new
>>> minor releases, than patch releases.
>>>
>>> And then when Artemis has a great set of features in 1.x, then
>>> dedicated patch releases could be done which are more careful selected
>>> bug fixes etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Clebert Suconic
>>> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I believe we should be ready for a release the end of this week, early
>>>> next week.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was going to call it 1.0.1 since my original plan was to keep
>>>> calilng these 1.0.1, 1.0.2, ... 1.0.n until the JIRAs on the release
>>>> 1.1.0 were fixed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> however since the addition of the first MQTT protocol, that makes it a
>>>> new / major feature. I'm not sure we should call it 1.0.1 or 1.1.0
>>>> now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We have also fixed logs of bugs.. and I'm currently doing some work on
>>>> examples (adding an openwire example and doing some work on open wire)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are a lot of fixes around openwire as well.
>>>>
>>>> Any ideas on the release name?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Claus Ibsen
>>> -----------------
>>> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
>>> Camel in Action 2nd edition: http://www.manning.com/ibsen2
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>>
Re: [HEADS-UP/Discussion] Artemis: Planning a release soon
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to add, I think from 1.1 we do it the way suggested i.e minor
> versions for patch releases etc but until Artemis can be regarded as a
> possible alternative to activemq I think stick to 1.0.1, having lots of
> major versions will just confuse people imo
1.0.1 would sound that we are just fixing small things.... I think
we should go with 1.1, 1.2, 1.3.... We could bump it to 2.0
eventually. I don't think it's going to confuse users.
I know you are in vacations (what are you doing here BTW? :) )... and
I will be out next week.. we can resume this thread when we are back.
Re: [HEADS-UP/Discussion] Artemis: Planning a release soon
Posted by Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>.
Just to add, I think from 1.1 we do it the way suggested i.e minor
versions for patch releases etc but until Artemis can be regarded as a
possible alternative to activemq I think stick to 1.0.1, having lots of
major versions will just confuse people imo
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:03 Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to disagree. We haven't really done a real major release. This
> first one was for ip clearance and we will be adding new functionality in
> every release and we don't want to end up at 1.20 before we know it. To me
> 1.1 will be the first release where we have some sort of feature parity
> with activemq.
>
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:49 Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> ok, we will do 1.1.0 (You convinced me.. through twitter actually ;) )...
>>
>> thinking again 1.0.1 makes it looks too minor... and there is a lot of
>> work done on artemis for this release, thanks for all the
>> contributions... It's really nice seeing great contributions here...
>> thanks everybody. (I can't name them all)
>>
>>
>> I would like to be the release manager for this release, but I won't
>> be around next week, otherwise I would start the process sooner, so i
>> will do it in 2 weeks possibly as a heads up.
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile, it would be nice people trying out and give us feedback on
>> two things from master: *
>> - try out MQTT. There's a small example under ./examples/protocols/mqtt
>> - look at our improved examples under ./examples (on both distro and
>> source)
>>
>>
>> * {
>> # how to build master:
>> git clone https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis.git artemis
>> cd artemis
>> mvn install
>> cd
>> artemis-distribution/target/apache-artemis-1.0.1-SNAPSHOT-bin/apache-artemis-1.0.1-SNAPSHOT/
>>
>> # ^^ That is the distribution.
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:53 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > I think 1.1.0 is better.
>> >
>> > Maybe here in the start where more new functions is added / ported
>> > from AMQ 5.x then the upcoming releases are IMHO more fitted as new
>> > minor releases, than patch releases.
>> >
>> > And then when Artemis has a great set of features in 1.x, then
>> > dedicated patch releases could be done which are more careful selected
>> > bug fixes etc.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Clebert Suconic
>> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I believe we should be ready for a release the end of this week, early
>> >> next week.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I was going to call it 1.0.1 since my original plan was to keep
>> >> calilng these 1.0.1, 1.0.2, ... 1.0.n until the JIRAs on the release
>> >> 1.1.0 were fixed.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> however since the addition of the first MQTT protocol, that makes it a
>> >> new / major feature. I'm not sure we should call it 1.0.1 or 1.1.0
>> >> now.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> We have also fixed logs of bugs.. and I'm currently doing some work on
>> >> examples (adding an openwire example and doing some work on open wire)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> There are a lot of fixes around openwire as well.
>> >>
>> >> Any ideas on the release name?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Claus Ibsen
>> > -----------------
>> > http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
>> > Camel in Action 2nd edition: http://www.manning.com/ibsen2
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>>
>
Re: [HEADS-UP/Discussion] Artemis: Planning a release soon
Posted by Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>.
I have to disagree. We haven't really done a real major release. This first
one was for ip clearance and we will be adding new functionality in every
release and we don't want to end up at 1.20 before we know it. To me 1.1
will be the first release where we have some sort of feature parity with
activemq.
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:49 Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ok, we will do 1.1.0 (You convinced me.. through twitter actually ;) )...
>
> thinking again 1.0.1 makes it looks too minor... and there is a lot of
> work done on artemis for this release, thanks for all the
> contributions... It's really nice seeing great contributions here...
> thanks everybody. (I can't name them all)
>
>
> I would like to be the release manager for this release, but I won't
> be around next week, otherwise I would start the process sooner, so i
> will do it in 2 weeks possibly as a heads up.
>
>
> Meanwhile, it would be nice people trying out and give us feedback on
> two things from master: *
> - try out MQTT. There's a small example under ./examples/protocols/mqtt
> - look at our improved examples under ./examples (on both distro and
> source)
>
>
> * {
> # how to build master:
> git clone https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis.git artemis
> cd artemis
> mvn install
> cd
> artemis-distribution/target/apache-artemis-1.0.1-SNAPSHOT-bin/apache-artemis-1.0.1-SNAPSHOT/
>
> # ^^ That is the distribution.
> }
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:53 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I think 1.1.0 is better.
> >
> > Maybe here in the start where more new functions is added / ported
> > from AMQ 5.x then the upcoming releases are IMHO more fitted as new
> > minor releases, than patch releases.
> >
> > And then when Artemis has a great set of features in 1.x, then
> > dedicated patch releases could be done which are more careful selected
> > bug fixes etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I believe we should be ready for a release the end of this week, early
> >> next week.
> >>
> >>
> >> I was going to call it 1.0.1 since my original plan was to keep
> >> calilng these 1.0.1, 1.0.2, ... 1.0.n until the JIRAs on the release
> >> 1.1.0 were fixed.
> >>
> >>
> >> however since the addition of the first MQTT protocol, that makes it a
> >> new / major feature. I'm not sure we should call it 1.0.1 or 1.1.0
> >> now.
> >>
> >>
> >> We have also fixed logs of bugs.. and I'm currently doing some work on
> >> examples (adding an openwire example and doing some work on open wire)
> >>
> >>
> >> There are a lot of fixes around openwire as well.
> >>
> >> Any ideas on the release name?
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Claus Ibsen
> > -----------------
> > http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> > Camel in Action 2nd edition: http://www.manning.com/ibsen2
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
Re: [HEADS-UP/Discussion] Artemis: Planning a release soon
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
ok, we will do 1.1.0 (You convinced me.. through twitter actually ;) )...
thinking again 1.0.1 makes it looks too minor... and there is a lot of
work done on artemis for this release, thanks for all the
contributions... It's really nice seeing great contributions here...
thanks everybody. (I can't name them all)
I would like to be the release manager for this release, but I won't
be around next week, otherwise I would start the process sooner, so i
will do it in 2 weeks possibly as a heads up.
Meanwhile, it would be nice people trying out and give us feedback on
two things from master: *
- try out MQTT. There's a small example under ./examples/protocols/mqtt
- look at our improved examples under ./examples (on both distro and source)
* {
# how to build master:
git clone https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis.git artemis
cd artemis
mvn install
cd artemis-distribution/target/apache-artemis-1.0.1-SNAPSHOT-bin/apache-artemis-1.0.1-SNAPSHOT/
# ^^ That is the distribution.
}
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:53 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I think 1.1.0 is better.
>
> Maybe here in the start where more new functions is added / ported
> from AMQ 5.x then the upcoming releases are IMHO more fitted as new
> minor releases, than patch releases.
>
> And then when Artemis has a great set of features in 1.x, then
> dedicated patch releases could be done which are more careful selected
> bug fixes etc.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I believe we should be ready for a release the end of this week, early
>> next week.
>>
>>
>> I was going to call it 1.0.1 since my original plan was to keep
>> calilng these 1.0.1, 1.0.2, ... 1.0.n until the JIRAs on the release
>> 1.1.0 were fixed.
>>
>>
>> however since the addition of the first MQTT protocol, that makes it a
>> new / major feature. I'm not sure we should call it 1.0.1 or 1.1.0
>> now.
>>
>>
>> We have also fixed logs of bugs.. and I'm currently doing some work on
>> examples (adding an openwire example and doing some work on open wire)
>>
>>
>> There are a lot of fixes around openwire as well.
>>
>> Any ideas on the release name?
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -----------------
> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> Camel in Action 2nd edition: http://www.manning.com/ibsen2
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [HEADS-UP/Discussion] Artemis: Planning a release soon
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
Yeah I think 1.1.0 fits better too, both for whats actually in it now
and also for a future approach like Claus mentioned.
Robbie
On 13 August 2015 at 08:53, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I think 1.1.0 is better.
>
> Maybe here in the start where more new functions is added / ported
> from AMQ 5.x then the upcoming releases are IMHO more fitted as new
> minor releases, than patch releases.
>
> And then when Artemis has a great set of features in 1.x, then
> dedicated patch releases could be done which are more careful selected
> bug fixes etc.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I believe we should be ready for a release the end of this week, early
>> next week.
>>
>>
>> I was going to call it 1.0.1 since my original plan was to keep
>> calilng these 1.0.1, 1.0.2, ... 1.0.n until the JIRAs on the release
>> 1.1.0 were fixed.
>>
>>
>> however since the addition of the first MQTT protocol, that makes it a
>> new / major feature. I'm not sure we should call it 1.0.1 or 1.1.0
>> now.
>>
>>
>> We have also fixed logs of bugs.. and I'm currently doing some work on
>> examples (adding an openwire example and doing some work on open wire)
>>
>>
>> There are a lot of fixes around openwire as well.
>>
>> Any ideas on the release name?
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -----------------
> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> Camel in Action 2nd edition: http://www.manning.com/ibsen2
Re: [HEADS-UP/Discussion] Artemis: Planning a release soon
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
Hi
I think 1.1.0 is better.
Maybe here in the start where more new functions is added / ported
from AMQ 5.x then the upcoming releases are IMHO more fitted as new
minor releases, than patch releases.
And then when Artemis has a great set of features in 1.x, then
dedicated patch releases could be done which are more careful selected
bug fixes etc.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe we should be ready for a release the end of this week, early
> next week.
>
>
> I was going to call it 1.0.1 since my original plan was to keep
> calilng these 1.0.1, 1.0.2, ... 1.0.n until the JIRAs on the release
> 1.1.0 were fixed.
>
>
> however since the addition of the first MQTT protocol, that makes it a
> new / major feature. I'm not sure we should call it 1.0.1 or 1.1.0
> now.
>
>
> We have also fixed logs of bugs.. and I'm currently doing some work on
> examples (adding an openwire example and doing some work on open wire)
>
>
> There are a lot of fixes around openwire as well.
>
> Any ideas on the release name?
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
Camel in Action 2nd edition: http://www.manning.com/ibsen2