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 2016/10/17 14:52:41 UTC
HEADS-UP/DISCUSS Artemis 1.4.1
I want to make a release early next week. (as I have pointed a few weeks ago).
I will release from master... there are a few new packages added
around OSGI, but I was still considering calling 1.4.1, and reserve
1.5.0 for a few more major features that will change the broker
itself.
If no objections I will call it 1.4.1, but I wouldn't mind calling it
1.5.0 if anyone objects.
Re: HEADS-UP/DISCUSS Artemis 1.4.1
Posted by Jim Gomes <jg...@apache.org>.
+1
No objections.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:52 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I want to make a release early next week. (as I have pointed a few weeks
> ago).
>
>
> I will release from master... there are a few new packages added
> around OSGI, but I was still considering calling 1.4.1, and reserve
> 1.5.0 for a few more major features that will change the broker
> itself.
>
>
> If no objections I will call it 1.4.1, but I wouldn't mind calling it
> 1.5.0 if anyone objects.
>
Re: HEADS-UP/DISCUSS Artemis 1.4.1
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
I won't have time to whip up the actual code tonight, maybe tomorrow. If
someone else has some interest in implementing
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-821 I added some notes on
where it looks like the header reading is missing. Please take a look,
comment on how far off I might be.
John
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 7:06 PM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Just an update on the status.
>
> I am a bit late (at least on what I pleanned) for this release as
> there are a few issues I wanted to get as part of 1.5.0.
>
> I have 2 JIRAs now as blocker for 1.5.0, meaning I will release when I
> clear the blockers. If there's also something you think it must/should
> come on 1.5.0 please let me know now.
>
>
> so far I have:
>
> Support scheduled messages with the STOMP protocol -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-821
> Reduce thread synchronization on the Journal -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-822
>
> I am currently working on ARTEMIS-822. I mean also create another
> blocker JIRA coming out of this work.
>
>
> If anyone could volunteer on ARTEMIS-821, it would be great :)
> Since I'm asking for help, if you start working on it.. please either
> add a comment or use Start Progress on the JIRA (to make sure we
> wouldn't have more than one person working on the same thing and
> wasting time)
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Clebert
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I will just call it 1.5.0 to be on the safe side.. not more discussion
> needed :)
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I'm looking at a git log between 1.4.0 and HEAD, and from what I see,
> >> there are a few improvements that could be translated as either
> >> features/improvements or bugs.
> >>
> >> A few tweaks on the wording could change them into either bug or fix...
> e.g:
> >>
> >> Reloading Divert Support - Feature,
> >> Diverts are not reloaded = Bug
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The only real feature I could find so far was your commit here:
> >>
> >>
> >> commit 9163c679ef21e70ba94f54c9a1bed9a12ad6bcca
> >> Author: John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> >> Date: Sun Jul 31 22:12:50 2016 -0400
> >> ARTEMIS-756 introduce CDI based integration for Artemis. Includes
> >> integration tests on both Weld and OWB.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If you'd like I can call it 1.5.0 based on this change. it's up to you
> >> really since it's your commit. WDYT?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:09 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>> Is there a changelog of whats going in? If its all bug fixes, 1.4.1
> makes
> >>> sense. if its feature, I would think 1.5.0 is more appropriate.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:52 AM Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I want to make a release early next week. (as I have pointed a few
> weeks
> >>>> ago).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I will release from master... there are a few new packages added
> >>>> around OSGI, but I was still considering calling 1.4.1, and reserve
> >>>> 1.5.0 for a few more major features that will change the broker
> >>>> itself.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If no objections I will call it 1.4.1, but I wouldn't mind calling it
> >>>> 1.5.0 if anyone objects.
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
Re: HEADS-UP/DISCUSS Artemis 1.4.1
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
Just an update on the status.
I am a bit late (at least on what I pleanned) for this release as
there are a few issues I wanted to get as part of 1.5.0.
I have 2 JIRAs now as blocker for 1.5.0, meaning I will release when I
clear the blockers. If there's also something you think it must/should
come on 1.5.0 please let me know now.
so far I have:
Support scheduled messages with the STOMP protocol -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-821
Reduce thread synchronization on the Journal -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-822
I am currently working on ARTEMIS-822. I mean also create another
blocker JIRA coming out of this work.
If anyone could volunteer on ARTEMIS-821, it would be great :)
Since I'm asking for help, if you start working on it.. please either
add a comment or use Start Progress on the JIRA (to make sure we
wouldn't have more than one person working on the same thing and
wasting time)
Thanks,
Clebert
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will just call it 1.5.0 to be on the safe side.. not more discussion needed :)
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm looking at a git log between 1.4.0 and HEAD, and from what I see,
>> there are a few improvements that could be translated as either
>> features/improvements or bugs.
>>
>> A few tweaks on the wording could change them into either bug or fix... e.g:
>>
>> Reloading Divert Support - Feature,
>> Diverts are not reloaded = Bug
>>
>>
>>
>> The only real feature I could find so far was your commit here:
>>
>>
>> commit 9163c679ef21e70ba94f54c9a1bed9a12ad6bcca
>> Author: John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
>> Date: Sun Jul 31 22:12:50 2016 -0400
>> ARTEMIS-756 introduce CDI based integration for Artemis. Includes
>> integration tests on both Weld and OWB.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you'd like I can call it 1.5.0 based on this change. it's up to you
>> really since it's your commit. WDYT?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:09 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Is there a changelog of whats going in? If its all bug fixes, 1.4.1 makes
>>> sense. if its feature, I would think 1.5.0 is more appropriate.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:52 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I want to make a release early next week. (as I have pointed a few weeks
>>>> ago).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I will release from master... there are a few new packages added
>>>> around OSGI, but I was still considering calling 1.4.1, and reserve
>>>> 1.5.0 for a few more major features that will change the broker
>>>> itself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If no objections I will call it 1.4.1, but I wouldn't mind calling it
>>>> 1.5.0 if anyone objects.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: HEADS-UP/DISCUSS Artemis 1.4.1
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I will just call it 1.5.0 to be on the safe side.. not more discussion needed :)
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm looking at a git log between 1.4.0 and HEAD, and from what I see,
> there are a few improvements that could be translated as either
> features/improvements or bugs.
>
> A few tweaks on the wording could change them into either bug or fix... e.g:
>
> Reloading Divert Support - Feature,
> Diverts are not reloaded = Bug
>
>
>
> The only real feature I could find so far was your commit here:
>
>
> commit 9163c679ef21e70ba94f54c9a1bed9a12ad6bcca
> Author: John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> Date: Sun Jul 31 22:12:50 2016 -0400
> ARTEMIS-756 introduce CDI based integration for Artemis. Includes
> integration tests on both Weld and OWB.
>
>
>
> If you'd like I can call it 1.5.0 based on this change. it's up to you
> really since it's your commit. WDYT?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:09 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Is there a changelog of whats going in? If its all bug fixes, 1.4.1 makes
>> sense. if its feature, I would think 1.5.0 is more appropriate.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:52 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I want to make a release early next week. (as I have pointed a few weeks
>>> ago).
>>>
>>>
>>> I will release from master... there are a few new packages added
>>> around OSGI, but I was still considering calling 1.4.1, and reserve
>>> 1.5.0 for a few more major features that will change the broker
>>> itself.
>>>
>>>
>>> If no objections I will call it 1.4.1, but I wouldn't mind calling it
>>> 1.5.0 if anyone objects.
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: HEADS-UP/DISCUSS Artemis 1.4.1
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I'm looking at a git log between 1.4.0 and HEAD, and from what I see,
there are a few improvements that could be translated as either
features/improvements or bugs.
A few tweaks on the wording could change them into either bug or fix... e.g:
Reloading Divert Support - Feature,
Diverts are not reloaded = Bug
The only real feature I could find so far was your commit here:
commit 9163c679ef21e70ba94f54c9a1bed9a12ad6bcca
Author: John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
Date: Sun Jul 31 22:12:50 2016 -0400
ARTEMIS-756 introduce CDI based integration for Artemis. Includes
integration tests on both Weld and OWB.
If you'd like I can call it 1.5.0 based on this change. it's up to you
really since it's your commit. WDYT?
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:09 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Is there a changelog of whats going in? If its all bug fixes, 1.4.1 makes
> sense. if its feature, I would think 1.5.0 is more appropriate.
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:52 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I want to make a release early next week. (as I have pointed a few weeks
>> ago).
>>
>>
>> I will release from master... there are a few new packages added
>> around OSGI, but I was still considering calling 1.4.1, and reserve
>> 1.5.0 for a few more major features that will change the broker
>> itself.
>>
>>
>> If no objections I will call it 1.4.1, but I wouldn't mind calling it
>> 1.5.0 if anyone objects.
>>
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: HEADS-UP/DISCUSS Artemis 1.4.1
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Is there a changelog of whats going in? If its all bug fixes, 1.4.1 makes
sense. if its feature, I would think 1.5.0 is more appropriate.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:52 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I want to make a release early next week. (as I have pointed a few weeks
> ago).
>
>
> I will release from master... there are a few new packages added
> around OSGI, but I was still considering calling 1.4.1, and reserve
> 1.5.0 for a few more major features that will change the broker
> itself.
>
>
> If no objections I will call it 1.4.1, but I wouldn't mind calling it
> 1.5.0 if anyone objects.
>