You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> on 2015/10/05 22:25:50 UTC
Re: [HEADSUP] ActiveMQ 5.12.1 Release Preparation
With AMQ-5966 being closed, the only other issue I'm hoping to try and get
resolved for 5.12.1 is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5994.
Does anyone have any other issues they want to look at resolving before
releasing 5.12.1?
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> That is a good point and I agree that issue should be resolved for
> 5.12.1. However, I am also having a hard time determining if the behavior
> change is a bug or not for the same reasons you pointed out.
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:36 PM, Christopher Shannon <
>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > It's been about a month since 5.12.0 was released and there are already
>> a
>> > good number of fixes contributed towards 5.12.1 so I'd like to start
>> > working on a 5.12.1 release in a few days.
>> >
>> > If there is anything major that would be a blocker, let me know.
>> >
>> > Here are the current release notes:
>> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12333269
>>
>> Well, I’d like to understand what is going on with
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5966 a bit first. It’s
>> definitely a behavior change (and thus should have been documented in
>> release notes at the very least). What I’m still struggling with is
>> trying to determine if it’s a bug or not.
>>
>> That said, the commit that introduced the change did not include a unit
>> test. The log points at a fuse JIRA that is obviously completely
>> unrelated. Thus, I have no idea why that change was even put in. I’m
>> tempted to back it out.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>
>>
>
Re: [HEADSUP] ActiveMQ 5.12.1 Release Preparation
Posted by Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net>.
Hi,
I’d like to tackle one issue I have on my list in the next few days. It’d
be good if you could hold on the release before we have that.
Regards
--
Dejan Bosanac
about.me/dejanb
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> With AMQ-5966 being closed, the only other issue I'm hoping to try and get
> resolved for 5.12.1 is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5994.
>
> Does anyone have any other issues they want to look at resolving before
> releasing 5.12.1?
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That is a good point and I agree that issue should be resolved for
> > 5.12.1. However, I am also having a hard time determining if the
> behavior
> > change is a bug or not for the same reasons you pointed out.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:36 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> >> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > It's been about a month since 5.12.0 was released and there are
> already
> >> a
> >> > good number of fixes contributed towards 5.12.1 so I'd like to start
> >> > working on a 5.12.1 release in a few days.
> >> >
> >> > If there is anything major that would be a blocker, let me know.
> >> >
> >> > Here are the current release notes:
> >> >
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12333269
> >>
> >> Well, I’d like to understand what is going on with
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5966 a bit first. It’s
> >> definitely a behavior change (and thus should have been documented in
> >> release notes at the very least). What I’m still struggling with is
> >> trying to determine if it’s a bug or not.
> >>
> >> That said, the commit that introduced the change did not include a unit
> >> test. The log points at a fuse JIRA that is obviously completely
> >> unrelated. Thus, I have no idea why that change was even put in. I’m
> >> tempted to back it out.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daniel Kulp
> >> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>
> >>
> >
>
Re: [HEADSUP] ActiveMQ 5.12.1 Release Preparation
Posted by Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net>.
Great. Thanks!
Regards
--
Dejan Bosanac
about.me/dejanb
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> I went ahead and merged the MQTT changes into the 5.12.x branch.
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I think those are safe. No major changes, just some hardening.
> >
> > Regards
> > --
> > Dejan Bosanac
> > about.me/dejanb
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On 10/07/2015 11:03 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
> > > > Claus, I applied your commits to the 5.12.x branch so camel and
> jolokia
> > > are
> > > > now up to date.
> > > >
> > > > Dejan, no problem, the release can wait until your issue gets fixed.
> > >
> > > There were a couple recent MQTT fixes that went into master, are those
> > > safe to go into 5.12.1? Seems so from a quick glance at the commits.
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> And jolokia to 1.3.2
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>> I think we should upgrade camel from 2.15.2 to 2.15.3 so it has the
> > > >>> latest bug fixes in this patch release too.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Christopher Shannon
> > > >>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> With AMQ-5966 being closed, the only other issue I'm hoping to try
> > and
> > > >> get
> > > >>>> resolved for 5.12.1 is
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5994
> > > .
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Does anyone have any other issues they want to look at resolving
> > > before
> > > >>>> releasing 5.12.1?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> > > >>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> That is a good point and I agree that issue should be resolved
> for
> > > >>>>> 5.12.1. However, I am also having a hard time determining if the
> > > >> behavior
> > > >>>>> change is a bug or not for the same reasons you pointed out.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:36 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> > > >>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> It's been about a month since 5.12.0 was released and there are
> > > >> already
> > > >>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>> good number of fixes contributed towards 5.12.1 so I'd like to
> > > start
> > > >>>>>>> working on a 5.12.1 release in a few days.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> If there is anything major that would be a blocker, let me
> know.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Here are the current release notes:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12333269
> > > >>>>>> Well, I’d like to understand what is going on with
> > > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5966 a bit first.
> > It’s
> > > >>>>>> definitely a behavior change (and thus should have been
> documented
> > > in
> > > >>>>>> release notes at the very least). What I’m still struggling
> > with
> > > is
> > > >>>>>> trying to determine if it’s a bug or not.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> That said, the commit that introduced the change did not
> include a
> > > >> unit
> > > >>>>>> test. The log points at a fuse JIRA that is obviously
> completely
> > > >>>>>> unrelated. Thus, I have no idea why that change was even put
> in.
> > > >> I’m
> > > >>>>>> tempted to back it out.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>> Daniel Kulp
> > > >>>>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > > >>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Claus Ibsen
> > > >>> -----------------
> > > >>> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> > > >>> Camel in Action 2nd edition:
> > > >>> https://www.manning.com/books/camel-in-action-second-edition
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Claus Ibsen
> > > >> -----------------
> > > >> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> > > >> Camel in Action 2nd edition:
> > > >> https://www.manning.com/books/camel-in-action-second-edition
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tim Bish
> > > Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
> > > tim.bish@redhat.com | www.redhat.com
> > > twitter: @tabish121
> > > blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [HEADSUP] ActiveMQ 5.12.1 Release Preparation
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
I went ahead and merged the MQTT changes into the 5.12.x branch.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net> wrote:
> Yeah, I think those are safe. No major changes, just some hardening.
>
> Regards
> --
> Dejan Bosanac
> about.me/dejanb
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10/07/2015 11:03 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
> > > Claus, I applied your commits to the 5.12.x branch so camel and jolokia
> > are
> > > now up to date.
> > >
> > > Dejan, no problem, the release can wait until your issue gets fixed.
> >
> > There were a couple recent MQTT fixes that went into master, are those
> > safe to go into 5.12.1? Seems so from a quick glance at the commits.
> >
> > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> And jolokia to 1.3.2
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>> I think we should upgrade camel from 2.15.2 to 2.15.3 so it has the
> > >>> latest bug fixes in this patch release too.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Christopher Shannon
> > >>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> With AMQ-5966 being closed, the only other issue I'm hoping to try
> and
> > >> get
> > >>>> resolved for 5.12.1 is
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5994
> > .
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Does anyone have any other issues they want to look at resolving
> > before
> > >>>> releasing 5.12.1?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> > >>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> That is a good point and I agree that issue should be resolved for
> > >>>>> 5.12.1. However, I am also having a hard time determining if the
> > >> behavior
> > >>>>> change is a bug or not for the same reasons you pointed out.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:36 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> > >>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> It's been about a month since 5.12.0 was released and there are
> > >> already
> > >>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>> good number of fixes contributed towards 5.12.1 so I'd like to
> > start
> > >>>>>>> working on a 5.12.1 release in a few days.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> If there is anything major that would be a blocker, let me know.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Here are the current release notes:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12333269
> > >>>>>> Well, I’d like to understand what is going on with
> > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5966 a bit first.
> It’s
> > >>>>>> definitely a behavior change (and thus should have been documented
> > in
> > >>>>>> release notes at the very least). What I’m still struggling
> with
> > is
> > >>>>>> trying to determine if it’s a bug or not.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> That said, the commit that introduced the change did not include a
> > >> unit
> > >>>>>> test. The log points at a fuse JIRA that is obviously completely
> > >>>>>> unrelated. Thus, I have no idea why that change was even put in.
> > >> I’m
> > >>>>>> tempted to back it out.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Daniel Kulp
> > >>>>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > >>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Claus Ibsen
> > >>> -----------------
> > >>> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> > >>> Camel in Action 2nd edition:
> > >>> https://www.manning.com/books/camel-in-action-second-edition
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Claus Ibsen
> > >> -----------------
> > >> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> > >> Camel in Action 2nd edition:
> > >> https://www.manning.com/books/camel-in-action-second-edition
> > >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tim Bish
> > Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
> > tim.bish@redhat.com | www.redhat.com
> > twitter: @tabish121
> > blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
>
Re: [HEADSUP] ActiveMQ 5.12.1 Release Preparation
Posted by Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net>.
Yeah, I think those are safe. No major changes, just some hardening.
Regards
--
Dejan Bosanac
about.me/dejanb
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/07/2015 11:03 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
> > Claus, I applied your commits to the 5.12.x branch so camel and jolokia
> are
> > now up to date.
> >
> > Dejan, no problem, the release can wait until your issue gets fixed.
>
> There were a couple recent MQTT fixes that went into master, are those
> safe to go into 5.12.1? Seems so from a quick glance at the commits.
>
> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> And jolokia to 1.3.2
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> I think we should upgrade camel from 2.15.2 to 2.15.3 so it has the
> >>> latest bug fixes in this patch release too.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Christopher Shannon
> >>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> With AMQ-5966 being closed, the only other issue I'm hoping to try and
> >> get
> >>>> resolved for 5.12.1 is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5994
> .
> >>>>
> >>>> Does anyone have any other issues they want to look at resolving
> before
> >>>> releasing 5.12.1?
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> >>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> That is a good point and I agree that issue should be resolved for
> >>>>> 5.12.1. However, I am also having a hard time determining if the
> >> behavior
> >>>>> change is a bug or not for the same reasons you pointed out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:36 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> >>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> It's been about a month since 5.12.0 was released and there are
> >> already
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>>> good number of fixes contributed towards 5.12.1 so I'd like to
> start
> >>>>>>> working on a 5.12.1 release in a few days.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If there is anything major that would be a blocker, let me know.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Here are the current release notes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12333269
> >>>>>> Well, I’d like to understand what is going on with
> >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5966 a bit first. It’s
> >>>>>> definitely a behavior change (and thus should have been documented
> in
> >>>>>> release notes at the very least). What I’m still struggling with
> is
> >>>>>> trying to determine if it’s a bug or not.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That said, the commit that introduced the change did not include a
> >> unit
> >>>>>> test. The log points at a fuse JIRA that is obviously completely
> >>>>>> unrelated. Thus, I have no idea why that change was even put in.
> >> I’m
> >>>>>> tempted to back it out.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Daniel Kulp
> >>>>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Claus Ibsen
> >>> -----------------
> >>> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> >>> Camel in Action 2nd edition:
> >>> https://www.manning.com/books/camel-in-action-second-edition
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Claus Ibsen
> >> -----------------
> >> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> >> Camel in Action 2nd edition:
> >> https://www.manning.com/books/camel-in-action-second-edition
> >>
>
>
> --
> Tim Bish
> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
> tim.bish@redhat.com | www.redhat.com
> twitter: @tabish121
> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>
>
Re: [HEADSUP] ActiveMQ 5.12.1 Release Preparation
Posted by Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>.
On 10/07/2015 11:03 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
> Claus, I applied your commits to the 5.12.x branch so camel and jolokia are
> now up to date.
>
> Dejan, no problem, the release can wait until your issue gets fixed.
There were a couple recent MQTT fixes that went into master, are those
safe to go into 5.12.1? Seems so from a quick glance at the commits.
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And jolokia to 1.3.2
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think we should upgrade camel from 2.15.2 to 2.15.3 so it has the
>>> latest bug fixes in this patch release too.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Christopher Shannon
>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> With AMQ-5966 being closed, the only other issue I'm hoping to try and
>> get
>>>> resolved for 5.12.1 is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5994.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have any other issues they want to look at resolving before
>>>> releasing 5.12.1?
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Christopher Shannon <
>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That is a good point and I agree that issue should be resolved for
>>>>> 5.12.1. However, I am also having a hard time determining if the
>> behavior
>>>>> change is a bug or not for the same reasons you pointed out.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:36 PM, Christopher Shannon <
>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> It's been about a month since 5.12.0 was released and there are
>> already
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> good number of fixes contributed towards 5.12.1 so I'd like to start
>>>>>>> working on a 5.12.1 release in a few days.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there is anything major that would be a blocker, let me know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here are the current release notes:
>>>>>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12333269
>>>>>> Well, I’d like to understand what is going on with
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5966 a bit first. It’s
>>>>>> definitely a behavior change (and thus should have been documented in
>>>>>> release notes at the very least). What I’m still struggling with is
>>>>>> trying to determine if it’s a bug or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, the commit that introduced the change did not include a
>> unit
>>>>>> test. The log points at a fuse JIRA that is obviously completely
>>>>>> unrelated. Thus, I have no idea why that change was even put in.
>> I’m
>>>>>> tempted to back it out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Claus Ibsen
>>> -----------------
>>> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
>>> Camel in Action 2nd edition:
>>> https://www.manning.com/books/camel-in-action-second-edition
>>
>>
>> --
>> Claus Ibsen
>> -----------------
>> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
>> Camel in Action 2nd edition:
>> https://www.manning.com/books/camel-in-action-second-edition
>>
--
Tim Bish
Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
tim.bish@redhat.com | www.redhat.com
twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
Re: [HEADSUP] ActiveMQ 5.12.1 Release Preparation
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
Claus, I applied your commits to the 5.12.x branch so camel and jolokia are
now up to date.
Dejan, no problem, the release can wait until your issue gets fixed.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And jolokia to 1.3.2
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think we should upgrade camel from 2.15.2 to 2.15.3 so it has the
> > latest bug fixes in this patch release too.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Christopher Shannon
> > <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> With AMQ-5966 being closed, the only other issue I'm hoping to try and
> get
> >> resolved for 5.12.1 is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5994.
> >>
> >> Does anyone have any other issues they want to look at resolving before
> >> releasing 5.12.1?
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> >> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> That is a good point and I agree that issue should be resolved for
> >>> 5.12.1. However, I am also having a hard time determining if the
> behavior
> >>> change is a bug or not for the same reasons you pointed out.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:36 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> >>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> > It's been about a month since 5.12.0 was released and there are
> already
> >>>> a
> >>>> > good number of fixes contributed towards 5.12.1 so I'd like to start
> >>>> > working on a 5.12.1 release in a few days.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > If there is anything major that would be a blocker, let me know.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Here are the current release notes:
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12333269
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, I’d like to understand what is going on with
> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5966 a bit first. It’s
> >>>> definitely a behavior change (and thus should have been documented in
> >>>> release notes at the very least). What I’m still struggling with is
> >>>> trying to determine if it’s a bug or not.
> >>>>
> >>>> That said, the commit that introduced the change did not include a
> unit
> >>>> test. The log points at a fuse JIRA that is obviously completely
> >>>> unrelated. Thus, I have no idea why that change was even put in.
> I’m
> >>>> tempted to back it out.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Daniel Kulp
> >>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Claus Ibsen
> > -----------------
> > http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> > Camel in Action 2nd edition:
> > https://www.manning.com/books/camel-in-action-second-edition
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -----------------
> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> Camel in Action 2nd edition:
> https://www.manning.com/books/camel-in-action-second-edition
>
Re: [HEADSUP] ActiveMQ 5.12.1 Release Preparation
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
And jolokia to 1.3.2
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we should upgrade camel from 2.15.2 to 2.15.3 so it has the
> latest bug fixes in this patch release too.
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Christopher Shannon
> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> With AMQ-5966 being closed, the only other issue I'm hoping to try and get
>> resolved for 5.12.1 is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5994.
>>
>> Does anyone have any other issues they want to look at resolving before
>> releasing 5.12.1?
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Christopher Shannon <
>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That is a good point and I agree that issue should be resolved for
>>> 5.12.1. However, I am also having a hard time determining if the behavior
>>> change is a bug or not for the same reasons you pointed out.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:36 PM, Christopher Shannon <
>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > It's been about a month since 5.12.0 was released and there are already
>>>> a
>>>> > good number of fixes contributed towards 5.12.1 so I'd like to start
>>>> > working on a 5.12.1 release in a few days.
>>>> >
>>>> > If there is anything major that would be a blocker, let me know.
>>>> >
>>>> > Here are the current release notes:
>>>> >
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12333269
>>>>
>>>> Well, I’d like to understand what is going on with
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5966 a bit first. It’s
>>>> definitely a behavior change (and thus should have been documented in
>>>> release notes at the very least). What I’m still struggling with is
>>>> trying to determine if it’s a bug or not.
>>>>
>>>> That said, the commit that introduced the change did not include a unit
>>>> test. The log points at a fuse JIRA that is obviously completely
>>>> unrelated. Thus, I have no idea why that change was even put in. I’m
>>>> tempted to back it out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -----------------
> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> Camel in Action 2nd edition:
> https://www.manning.com/books/camel-in-action-second-edition
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
Camel in Action 2nd edition:
https://www.manning.com/books/camel-in-action-second-edition
Re: [HEADSUP] ActiveMQ 5.12.1 Release Preparation
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
I think we should upgrade camel from 2.15.2 to 2.15.3 so it has the
latest bug fixes in this patch release too.
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Christopher Shannon
<ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With AMQ-5966 being closed, the only other issue I'm hoping to try and get
> resolved for 5.12.1 is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5994.
>
> Does anyone have any other issues they want to look at resolving before
> releasing 5.12.1?
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That is a good point and I agree that issue should be resolved for
>> 5.12.1. However, I am also having a hard time determining if the behavior
>> change is a bug or not for the same reasons you pointed out.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:36 PM, Christopher Shannon <
>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > It's been about a month since 5.12.0 was released and there are already
>>> a
>>> > good number of fixes contributed towards 5.12.1 so I'd like to start
>>> > working on a 5.12.1 release in a few days.
>>> >
>>> > If there is anything major that would be a blocker, let me know.
>>> >
>>> > Here are the current release notes:
>>> >
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12333269
>>>
>>> Well, I’d like to understand what is going on with
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5966 a bit first. It’s
>>> definitely a behavior change (and thus should have been documented in
>>> release notes at the very least). What I’m still struggling with is
>>> trying to determine if it’s a bug or not.
>>>
>>> That said, the commit that introduced the change did not include a unit
>>> test. The log points at a fuse JIRA that is obviously completely
>>> unrelated. Thus, I have no idea why that change was even put in. I’m
>>> tempted to back it out.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Kulp
>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>
>>>
>>
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
Camel in Action 2nd edition:
https://www.manning.com/books/camel-in-action-second-edition