The community as a whole is not focusing exclusively on Artemis. Some people work on Artemis, some people work in 5.x. Many people hope and expect that at some point, Artemis will take over as ActiveMQ 6.x (whether it's called that or not), and the 5.x codebase would then be left behind, but it's not a given that it will happen and even assuming it does, there's no explicit timeframe for the transition. Until that point, 5.x remains under active development and support.
>From what I've seen, the Artemis developers are generally very quick about responding to posts on the mailing list, and seem to implement fixes quickly when those posts result in a bug report. (Kudos.) 5.x posts are also responded to, but more of them go unanswered (because those of us who monitor the list don't always know everything about all topics) and there is sometimes a longer delay before a response. Those things are partly due to who's available to monitor the list (and how much time we can donate to that effort) and partly due to the fact that there are currently far more 5.x questions than Artemis questions. 5.x bugs are fixed (you can look at the release notes of the just-released 5.13.4 incidental version for a sense of how much goes into a dot drop, and you can look at the release notes for a 5.x.0 release for a sense of how many things are fixed in a minor version), and as you'd probably expect, the ones that are better-written and/or hit a more-useful or more-broadly-applicable issue generally get implemented faster than poorly-written ones that add little value in niche use cases. And for both 5.x and Artemis, your odds of a fix getting implemented quickly go up substantially if you implement and submit the fix yourself along with the JIRA bug. We're both open-source projects, and we gladly accept contributions, though bugs will still get fixed even if the respective developers have to implement the fix themselves. Tim On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Dan Abayev <daba...@fortress.com> wrote: > Thanks for the explanation. I will have to convince my architect to let me > do > that with an open source project. Too many restrictions. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Read-only-user-functionality-tp4713881p4714058.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
