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 2021/08/20 19:10:45 UTC
[HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0
I would like to do a 2.19.0 release around Aug-30th.
Please help me out on merging stuff required before then.
if there's something (JIRA or PR) you would really like to include
please mention it here.. (Last time someone mentioned me on the PR I
missed the notification).
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
Great :)
On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 15:27, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And BTW @Robbie I’m planning to merge your JDK switch PR right after the
> release. This should be the last release supporting JDK 8.
>
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:25 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Let’s postpone until Monday while we investigate these.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:01 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Franz believes he found the issue, side effects from an earlier change
> >> made months ago being hit now, exposed by use of the affected method
> >> in recent changes.
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3465
> >> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3731
> >>
> >> I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> >> before another release occurs:
> >>
> >> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> >>
> >> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> >> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> >>
> >> On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 12:57, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Changes made on main recently (perhaps yesterday) look to have rather
> >> > broken some things on expanded test runs (i.e not the push/PR subset),
> >> > so that needs to be resolved first.
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 22:48, Clebert Suconic <
> >> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Any problem if I did the release tomorrow?
> >> > >
> >> > > Anyone wants to include anything extra ?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:10 PM Clebert Suconic <
> >> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I would like to do a 2.19.0 release around Aug-30th.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Please help me out on merging stuff required before then.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > if there's something (JIRA or PR) you would really like to include
> >> > > > please mention it here.. (Last time someone mentioned me on the PR I
> >> > > > missed the notification).
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Clebert Suconic
> >> > > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Clebert Suconic
> >>
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
> --
> Clebert Suconic
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
And BTW @Robbie I’m planning to merge your JDK switch PR right after the
release. This should be the last release supporting JDK 8.
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:25 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Let’s postpone until Monday while we investigate these.
>
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:01 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Franz believes he found the issue, side effects from an earlier change
>> made months ago being hit now, exposed by use of the affected method
>> in recent changes.
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3465
>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3731
>>
>> I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
>> before another release occurs:
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
>>
>> On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 12:57, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Changes made on main recently (perhaps yesterday) look to have rather
>> > broken some things on expanded test runs (i.e not the push/PR subset),
>> > so that needs to be resolved first.
>> >
>> > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 22:48, Clebert Suconic <
>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Any problem if I did the release tomorrow?
>> > >
>> > > Anyone wants to include anything extra ?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:10 PM Clebert Suconic <
>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I would like to do a 2.19.0 release around Aug-30th.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Please help me out on merging stuff required before then.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > if there's something (JIRA or PR) you would really like to include
>> > > > please mention it here.. (Last time someone mentioned me on the PR I
>> > > > missed the notification).
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Clebert Suconic
>> > > >
>> > > --
>> > > Clebert Suconic
>>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
I also think there is still some final touchup needed on #3278 / its followup:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3737#discussion_r707239677
On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 09:36, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I this also still needs looked at:
>
> > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > before another release occurs:
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> >
> On Fri, 10 Sept 2021 at 23:50, Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have merged the change on the mirror / paging fix....
> >
> >
> > Before I release though I need to remove the CLI input I added.. some
> > people complained about the retention input I asked during the
> > create.. (some users were saying their scripts were broken)...
> > although we have the --silent for such cases.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:51 PM Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm doing a retry on the same thread as the depage executor.
> > >
> > >
> > > I am finishing a test I'm writing and I will send the PR tomorrow (Friday)
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 12:46 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I left some mostly trivial feedback on another PR merged yesterday,
> > > > #3728, but there is one comment I think also needs looked at first:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3728#discussion_r705417703
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 15:26, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Let’s postpone until Monday while we investigate these.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:01 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Franz believes he found the issue, side effects from an earlier change
> > > > > > made months ago being hit now, exposed by use of the affected method
> > > > > > in recent changes.
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3465
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3731
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > > > > > before another release occurs:
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 12:57, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Changes made on main recently (perhaps yesterday) look to have rather
> > > > > > > broken some things on expanded test runs (i.e not the push/PR subset),
> > > > > > > so that needs to be resolved first.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 22:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any problem if I did the release tomorrow?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anyone wants to include anything extra ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:10 PM Clebert Suconic <
> > > > > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I would like to do a 2.19.0 release around Aug-30th.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please help me out on merging stuff required before then.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > if there's something (JIRA or PR) you would really like to include
> > > > > > > > > please mention it here.. (Last time someone mentioned me on the PR I
> > > > > > > > > missed the notification).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
I'll manage this release, Clebert.
Justin
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 5:50 PM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I think we are ready for a release...
>
> however I am busy these next few days for a mix of professional and
> personal things now.. (everything good with me BTW.. just busier than
> usual)
>
>
> So, if anyone wants to release 2.19.0... we can go ahead now... we
> just a volunteer to be the release manager... (anyone?)
>
>
> If not, I will try to do it either monday or tuesday next week.
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 5:17 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I realise it is unrelated to the PR, that's why I suggested the PR not
> > remove the other code until it could be looked into, since it is
> > related to the still-remaining stuff that did still _appear_ like it
> > was used.
> >
> > If the method is unused despite appearance then that is great, there
> > is no issue and just a 30 second change improves things by removing
> > the unpopulated field and making the method throw an appropriate
> > exception, cutting off a rabbit hole and helping discouraging any
> > future use. As is, your PR actually goes a good bit further and
> > [re]moves some of the other bits that make the method appear used, so
> > thats even better.
> >
> > I typically do consider potentially significantly broken message
> > handling a blocker until its at least quickly looked at by someone
> > with a clue to see the true impact, and I couldn't tell that, hence
> > wanting someone who knows it to assess. I agree that its not a blocker
> > now, though the minimal non-behavioural change does also seem like a
> > no-brainer to include.
> >
> > On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 02:48, Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > that has nothing to do with the PR on large message, and it's totally
> > > orthogonal to that change...
> > >
> > > As a matter of fact.. I don't even consider it a blocking...
> > >
> > > During the heavy refactoring on large messages supporting AMQP, I had
> > > the getData() doing the right thing at some point, however as I kept
> > > refacotring and improving it.. it ended up non used... and it became
> > > dead.
> > >
> > >
> > > The code is never used.. and it should not block a release...
> > >
> > >
> > > Although I may send a PR today / tomorrow regardless.. per your
> > > request.. but that's a totally optinal task Robbie
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 9:53 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The dead code itself wasnt the issue raised, it's that the code
> > > > created and operated on a buffer that remains even after removing the
> > > > dead methods and is still being referenced elsewhere, though the
> field
> > > > is never populated now so the using getData() method can only ever
> > > > throw, and that method seems like it can be called.
> > > >
> > > > If you are saying that the getData() method can never actually be
> > > > called despite appearance otherwise, then at minimum its impl should
> > > > be changed to indicate that instead and stop referencing a field that
> > > > is never populated.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 14:00, Clebert Suconic
> > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I wasn't sure what you were referring on that PR.... I thought you
> > > > > still needed changes on the large message processing...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As for the dead code.. at some point I was reading the messages
> from
> > > > > disk during reload of the journal. I then changed and I always have
> > > > > the first packet on memory and I use that one to parse properties
> and
> > > > > annotations.
> > > > >
> > > > > For converters... on AMQPLargeMessage.toCore() I will use the same
> > > > > method used to deliver a large message (the Deliverer Context).. so
> > > > > those dead code were forgotten there and not needed... there's
> nothing
> > > > > to be done in that case.
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought I already mentioned that in the PR.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 4:13 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Revert what exactly? Reverting the PR this was raised on wouldn't
> > > > > > actually change anything, since the apparent issue isnt to do
> with the
> > > > > > changes made in the PR (other than it removed the dead code that
> looks
> > > > > > like it shouldnt be dead, since the buffer it opened/closed is
> still
> > > > > > referenced). Its some earlier change that must have made it the
> way it
> > > > > > is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 22:43, Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If the large message delivering in AMQP still an issue, I
> would rather
> > > > > > > just revert the whole thing and keep the way it was before.. I
> thought
> > > > > > > it was a simple change.
> > > > > > > I'm addressing another issue I'm working on.. and I won't be
> able to
> > > > > > > look into that
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > @Franz / @Robbie Gemmell ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 4:37 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I this also still needs looked at:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be
> investigated
> > > > > > > > > before another release occurs:
> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, 10 Sept 2021 at 23:50, Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have merged the change on the mirror / paging fix....
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Before I release though I need to remove the CLI input I
> added.. some
> > > > > > > > > people complained about the retention input I asked during
> the
> > > > > > > > > create.. (some users were saying their scripts were
> broken)...
> > > > > > > > > although we have the --silent for such cases.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:51 PM Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm doing a retry on the same thread as the depage
> executor.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am finishing a test I'm writing and I will send the PR
> tomorrow (Friday)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 12:46 PM Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I left some mostly trivial feedback on another PR
> merged yesterday,
> > > > > > > > > > > #3728, but there is one comment I think also needs
> looked at first:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3728#discussion_r705417703
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 15:26, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Let’s postpone until Monday while we investigate
> these.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:01 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Franz believes he found the issue, side effects
> from an earlier change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > made months ago being hit now, exposed by use of
> the affected method
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in recent changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3465
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3731
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I also think the issue noted in these comments
> should be investigated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > before another release occurs:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 12:57, Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes made on main recently (perhaps
> yesterday) look to have rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broken some things on expanded test runs (i.e
> not the push/PR subset),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so that needs to be resolved first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 22:48, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any problem if I did the release tomorrow?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone wants to include anything extra ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:10 PM Clebert
> Suconic <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to do a 2.19.0 release around
> Aug-30th.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please help me out on merging stuff required
> before then.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if there's something (JIRA or PR) you would
> really like to include
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > please mention it here.. (Last time someone
> mentioned me on the PR I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > missed the notification).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
>
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I think we are ready for a release...
however I am busy these next few days for a mix of professional and
personal things now.. (everything good with me BTW.. just busier than
usual)
So, if anyone wants to release 2.19.0... we can go ahead now... we
just a volunteer to be the release manager... (anyone?)
If not, I will try to do it either monday or tuesday next week.
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 5:17 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I realise it is unrelated to the PR, that's why I suggested the PR not
> remove the other code until it could be looked into, since it is
> related to the still-remaining stuff that did still _appear_ like it
> was used.
>
> If the method is unused despite appearance then that is great, there
> is no issue and just a 30 second change improves things by removing
> the unpopulated field and making the method throw an appropriate
> exception, cutting off a rabbit hole and helping discouraging any
> future use. As is, your PR actually goes a good bit further and
> [re]moves some of the other bits that make the method appear used, so
> thats even better.
>
> I typically do consider potentially significantly broken message
> handling a blocker until its at least quickly looked at by someone
> with a clue to see the true impact, and I couldn't tell that, hence
> wanting someone who knows it to assess. I agree that its not a blocker
> now, though the minimal non-behavioural change does also seem like a
> no-brainer to include.
>
> On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 02:48, Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > that has nothing to do with the PR on large message, and it's totally
> > orthogonal to that change...
> >
> > As a matter of fact.. I don't even consider it a blocking...
> >
> > During the heavy refactoring on large messages supporting AMQP, I had
> > the getData() doing the right thing at some point, however as I kept
> > refacotring and improving it.. it ended up non used... and it became
> > dead.
> >
> >
> > The code is never used.. and it should not block a release...
> >
> >
> > Although I may send a PR today / tomorrow regardless.. per your
> > request.. but that's a totally optinal task Robbie
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 9:53 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The dead code itself wasnt the issue raised, it's that the code
> > > created and operated on a buffer that remains even after removing the
> > > dead methods and is still being referenced elsewhere, though the field
> > > is never populated now so the using getData() method can only ever
> > > throw, and that method seems like it can be called.
> > >
> > > If you are saying that the getData() method can never actually be
> > > called despite appearance otherwise, then at minimum its impl should
> > > be changed to indicate that instead and stop referencing a field that
> > > is never populated.
> > >
> > > On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 14:00, Clebert Suconic
> > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I wasn't sure what you were referring on that PR.... I thought you
> > > > still needed changes on the large message processing...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As for the dead code.. at some point I was reading the messages from
> > > > disk during reload of the journal. I then changed and I always have
> > > > the first packet on memory and I use that one to parse properties and
> > > > annotations.
> > > >
> > > > For converters... on AMQPLargeMessage.toCore() I will use the same
> > > > method used to deliver a large message (the Deliverer Context).. so
> > > > those dead code were forgotten there and not needed... there's nothing
> > > > to be done in that case.
> > > >
> > > > I thought I already mentioned that in the PR.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 4:13 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Revert what exactly? Reverting the PR this was raised on wouldn't
> > > > > actually change anything, since the apparent issue isnt to do with the
> > > > > changes made in the PR (other than it removed the dead code that looks
> > > > > like it shouldnt be dead, since the buffer it opened/closed is still
> > > > > referenced). Its some earlier change that must have made it the way it
> > > > > is.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 22:43, Clebert Suconic
> > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the large message delivering in AMQP still an issue, I would rather
> > > > > > just revert the whole thing and keep the way it was before.. I thought
> > > > > > it was a simple change.
> > > > > > I'm addressing another issue I'm working on.. and I won't be able to
> > > > > > look into that
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @Franz / @Robbie Gemmell ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 4:37 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I this also still needs looked at:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > > > > > > > before another release occurs:
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, 10 Sept 2021 at 23:50, Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have merged the change on the mirror / paging fix....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Before I release though I need to remove the CLI input I added.. some
> > > > > > > > people complained about the retention input I asked during the
> > > > > > > > create.. (some users were saying their scripts were broken)...
> > > > > > > > although we have the --silent for such cases.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:51 PM Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm doing a retry on the same thread as the depage executor.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am finishing a test I'm writing and I will send the PR tomorrow (Friday)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 12:46 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I left some mostly trivial feedback on another PR merged yesterday,
> > > > > > > > > > #3728, but there is one comment I think also needs looked at first:
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3728#discussion_r705417703
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 15:26, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Let’s postpone until Monday while we investigate these.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:01 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Franz believes he found the issue, side effects from an earlier change
> > > > > > > > > > > > made months ago being hit now, exposed by use of the affected method
> > > > > > > > > > > > in recent changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3465
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3731
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > > > > > > > > > > > before another release occurs:
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 12:57, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes made on main recently (perhaps yesterday) look to have rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > broken some things on expanded test runs (i.e not the push/PR subset),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > so that needs to be resolved first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 22:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any problem if I did the release tomorrow?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone wants to include anything extra ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:10 PM Clebert Suconic <
> > > > > > > > > > > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to do a 2.19.0 release around Aug-30th.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please help me out on merging stuff required before then.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if there's something (JIRA or PR) you would really like to include
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > please mention it here.. (Last time someone mentioned me on the PR I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > missed the notification).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
I realise it is unrelated to the PR, that's why I suggested the PR not
remove the other code until it could be looked into, since it is
related to the still-remaining stuff that did still _appear_ like it
was used.
If the method is unused despite appearance then that is great, there
is no issue and just a 30 second change improves things by removing
the unpopulated field and making the method throw an appropriate
exception, cutting off a rabbit hole and helping discouraging any
future use. As is, your PR actually goes a good bit further and
[re]moves some of the other bits that make the method appear used, so
thats even better.
I typically do consider potentially significantly broken message
handling a blocker until its at least quickly looked at by someone
with a clue to see the true impact, and I couldn't tell that, hence
wanting someone who knows it to assess. I agree that its not a blocker
now, though the minimal non-behavioural change does also seem like a
no-brainer to include.
On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 02:48, Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> that has nothing to do with the PR on large message, and it's totally
> orthogonal to that change...
>
> As a matter of fact.. I don't even consider it a blocking...
>
> During the heavy refactoring on large messages supporting AMQP, I had
> the getData() doing the right thing at some point, however as I kept
> refacotring and improving it.. it ended up non used... and it became
> dead.
>
>
> The code is never used.. and it should not block a release...
>
>
> Although I may send a PR today / tomorrow regardless.. per your
> request.. but that's a totally optinal task Robbie
>
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 9:53 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The dead code itself wasnt the issue raised, it's that the code
> > created and operated on a buffer that remains even after removing the
> > dead methods and is still being referenced elsewhere, though the field
> > is never populated now so the using getData() method can only ever
> > throw, and that method seems like it can be called.
> >
> > If you are saying that the getData() method can never actually be
> > called despite appearance otherwise, then at minimum its impl should
> > be changed to indicate that instead and stop referencing a field that
> > is never populated.
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 14:00, Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I wasn't sure what you were referring on that PR.... I thought you
> > > still needed changes on the large message processing...
> > >
> > >
> > > As for the dead code.. at some point I was reading the messages from
> > > disk during reload of the journal. I then changed and I always have
> > > the first packet on memory and I use that one to parse properties and
> > > annotations.
> > >
> > > For converters... on AMQPLargeMessage.toCore() I will use the same
> > > method used to deliver a large message (the Deliverer Context).. so
> > > those dead code were forgotten there and not needed... there's nothing
> > > to be done in that case.
> > >
> > > I thought I already mentioned that in the PR.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 4:13 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Revert what exactly? Reverting the PR this was raised on wouldn't
> > > > actually change anything, since the apparent issue isnt to do with the
> > > > changes made in the PR (other than it removed the dead code that looks
> > > > like it shouldnt be dead, since the buffer it opened/closed is still
> > > > referenced). Its some earlier change that must have made it the way it
> > > > is.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 22:43, Clebert Suconic
> > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > If the large message delivering in AMQP still an issue, I would rather
> > > > > just revert the whole thing and keep the way it was before.. I thought
> > > > > it was a simple change.
> > > > > I'm addressing another issue I'm working on.. and I won't be able to
> > > > > look into that
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > @Franz / @Robbie Gemmell ?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 4:37 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I this also still needs looked at:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > > > > > > before another release occurs:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 10 Sept 2021 at 23:50, Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have merged the change on the mirror / paging fix....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Before I release though I need to remove the CLI input I added.. some
> > > > > > > people complained about the retention input I asked during the
> > > > > > > create.. (some users were saying their scripts were broken)...
> > > > > > > although we have the --silent for such cases.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:51 PM Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm doing a retry on the same thread as the depage executor.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am finishing a test I'm writing and I will send the PR tomorrow (Friday)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 12:46 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I left some mostly trivial feedback on another PR merged yesterday,
> > > > > > > > > #3728, but there is one comment I think also needs looked at first:
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3728#discussion_r705417703
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 15:26, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Let’s postpone until Monday while we investigate these.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:01 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Franz believes he found the issue, side effects from an earlier change
> > > > > > > > > > > made months ago being hit now, exposed by use of the affected method
> > > > > > > > > > > in recent changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3465
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3731
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > > > > > > > > > > before another release occurs:
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 12:57, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Changes made on main recently (perhaps yesterday) look to have rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > broken some things on expanded test runs (i.e not the push/PR subset),
> > > > > > > > > > > > so that needs to be resolved first.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 22:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Any problem if I did the release tomorrow?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone wants to include anything extra ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:10 PM Clebert Suconic <
> > > > > > > > > > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to do a 2.19.0 release around Aug-30th.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please help me out on merging stuff required before then.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if there's something (JIRA or PR) you would really like to include
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > please mention it here.. (Last time someone mentioned me on the PR I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missed the notification).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3751
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 9:48 PM Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> that has nothing to do with the PR on large message, and it's totally
> orthogonal to that change...
>
> As a matter of fact.. I don't even consider it a blocking...
>
> During the heavy refactoring on large messages supporting AMQP, I had
> the getData() doing the right thing at some point, however as I kept
> refacotring and improving it.. it ended up non used... and it became
> dead.
>
>
> The code is never used.. and it should not block a release...
>
>
> Although I may send a PR today / tomorrow regardless.. per your
> request.. but that's a totally optinal task Robbie
>
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 9:53 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The dead code itself wasnt the issue raised, it's that the code
> > created and operated on a buffer that remains even after removing the
> > dead methods and is still being referenced elsewhere, though the field
> > is never populated now so the using getData() method can only ever
> > throw, and that method seems like it can be called.
> >
> > If you are saying that the getData() method can never actually be
> > called despite appearance otherwise, then at minimum its impl should
> > be changed to indicate that instead and stop referencing a field that
> > is never populated.
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 14:00, Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I wasn't sure what you were referring on that PR.... I thought you
> > > still needed changes on the large message processing...
> > >
> > >
> > > As for the dead code.. at some point I was reading the messages from
> > > disk during reload of the journal. I then changed and I always have
> > > the first packet on memory and I use that one to parse properties and
> > > annotations.
> > >
> > > For converters... on AMQPLargeMessage.toCore() I will use the same
> > > method used to deliver a large message (the Deliverer Context).. so
> > > those dead code were forgotten there and not needed... there's nothing
> > > to be done in that case.
> > >
> > > I thought I already mentioned that in the PR.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 4:13 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Revert what exactly? Reverting the PR this was raised on wouldn't
> > > > actually change anything, since the apparent issue isnt to do with the
> > > > changes made in the PR (other than it removed the dead code that looks
> > > > like it shouldnt be dead, since the buffer it opened/closed is still
> > > > referenced). Its some earlier change that must have made it the way it
> > > > is.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 22:43, Clebert Suconic
> > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > If the large message delivering in AMQP still an issue, I would rather
> > > > > just revert the whole thing and keep the way it was before.. I thought
> > > > > it was a simple change.
> > > > > I'm addressing another issue I'm working on.. and I won't be able to
> > > > > look into that
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > @Franz / @Robbie Gemmell ?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 4:37 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I this also still needs looked at:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > > > > > > before another release occurs:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 10 Sept 2021 at 23:50, Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have merged the change on the mirror / paging fix....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Before I release though I need to remove the CLI input I added.. some
> > > > > > > people complained about the retention input I asked during the
> > > > > > > create.. (some users were saying their scripts were broken)...
> > > > > > > although we have the --silent for such cases.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:51 PM Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm doing a retry on the same thread as the depage executor.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am finishing a test I'm writing and I will send the PR tomorrow (Friday)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 12:46 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I left some mostly trivial feedback on another PR merged yesterday,
> > > > > > > > > #3728, but there is one comment I think also needs looked at first:
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3728#discussion_r705417703
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 15:26, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Let’s postpone until Monday while we investigate these.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:01 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Franz believes he found the issue, side effects from an earlier change
> > > > > > > > > > > made months ago being hit now, exposed by use of the affected method
> > > > > > > > > > > in recent changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3465
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3731
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > > > > > > > > > > before another release occurs:
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 12:57, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Changes made on main recently (perhaps yesterday) look to have rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > broken some things on expanded test runs (i.e not the push/PR subset),
> > > > > > > > > > > > so that needs to be resolved first.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 22:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Any problem if I did the release tomorrow?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone wants to include anything extra ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:10 PM Clebert Suconic <
> > > > > > > > > > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to do a 2.19.0 release around Aug-30th.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please help me out on merging stuff required before then.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if there's something (JIRA or PR) you would really like to include
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > please mention it here.. (Last time someone mentioned me on the PR I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missed the notification).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
that has nothing to do with the PR on large message, and it's totally
orthogonal to that change...
As a matter of fact.. I don't even consider it a blocking...
During the heavy refactoring on large messages supporting AMQP, I had
the getData() doing the right thing at some point, however as I kept
refacotring and improving it.. it ended up non used... and it became
dead.
The code is never used.. and it should not block a release...
Although I may send a PR today / tomorrow regardless.. per your
request.. but that's a totally optinal task Robbie
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 9:53 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The dead code itself wasnt the issue raised, it's that the code
> created and operated on a buffer that remains even after removing the
> dead methods and is still being referenced elsewhere, though the field
> is never populated now so the using getData() method can only ever
> throw, and that method seems like it can be called.
>
> If you are saying that the getData() method can never actually be
> called despite appearance otherwise, then at minimum its impl should
> be changed to indicate that instead and stop referencing a field that
> is never populated.
>
> On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 14:00, Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I wasn't sure what you were referring on that PR.... I thought you
> > still needed changes on the large message processing...
> >
> >
> > As for the dead code.. at some point I was reading the messages from
> > disk during reload of the journal. I then changed and I always have
> > the first packet on memory and I use that one to parse properties and
> > annotations.
> >
> > For converters... on AMQPLargeMessage.toCore() I will use the same
> > method used to deliver a large message (the Deliverer Context).. so
> > those dead code were forgotten there and not needed... there's nothing
> > to be done in that case.
> >
> > I thought I already mentioned that in the PR.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 4:13 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Revert what exactly? Reverting the PR this was raised on wouldn't
> > > actually change anything, since the apparent issue isnt to do with the
> > > changes made in the PR (other than it removed the dead code that looks
> > > like it shouldnt be dead, since the buffer it opened/closed is still
> > > referenced). Its some earlier change that must have made it the way it
> > > is.
> > >
> > > On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 22:43, Clebert Suconic
> > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If the large message delivering in AMQP still an issue, I would rather
> > > > just revert the whole thing and keep the way it was before.. I thought
> > > > it was a simple change.
> > > > I'm addressing another issue I'm working on.. and I won't be able to
> > > > look into that
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > @Franz / @Robbie Gemmell ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 4:37 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I this also still needs looked at:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > > > > > before another release occurs:
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> > > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 10 Sept 2021 at 23:50, Clebert Suconic
> > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have merged the change on the mirror / paging fix....
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Before I release though I need to remove the CLI input I added.. some
> > > > > > people complained about the retention input I asked during the
> > > > > > create.. (some users were saying their scripts were broken)...
> > > > > > although we have the --silent for such cases.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:51 PM Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm doing a retry on the same thread as the depage executor.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am finishing a test I'm writing and I will send the PR tomorrow (Friday)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 12:46 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I left some mostly trivial feedback on another PR merged yesterday,
> > > > > > > > #3728, but there is one comment I think also needs looked at first:
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3728#discussion_r705417703
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 15:26, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Let’s postpone until Monday while we investigate these.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:01 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Franz believes he found the issue, side effects from an earlier change
> > > > > > > > > > made months ago being hit now, exposed by use of the affected method
> > > > > > > > > > in recent changes.
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3465
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3731
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > > > > > > > > > before another release occurs:
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 12:57, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Changes made on main recently (perhaps yesterday) look to have rather
> > > > > > > > > > > broken some things on expanded test runs (i.e not the push/PR subset),
> > > > > > > > > > > so that needs to be resolved first.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 22:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Any problem if I did the release tomorrow?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone wants to include anything extra ?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:10 PM Clebert Suconic <
> > > > > > > > > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to do a 2.19.0 release around Aug-30th.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please help me out on merging stuff required before then.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > if there's something (JIRA or PR) you would really like to include
> > > > > > > > > > > > > please mention it here.. (Last time someone mentioned me on the PR I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > missed the notification).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
The dead code itself wasnt the issue raised, it's that the code
created and operated on a buffer that remains even after removing the
dead methods and is still being referenced elsewhere, though the field
is never populated now so the using getData() method can only ever
throw, and that method seems like it can be called.
If you are saying that the getData() method can never actually be
called despite appearance otherwise, then at minimum its impl should
be changed to indicate that instead and stop referencing a field that
is never populated.
On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 14:00, Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I wasn't sure what you were referring on that PR.... I thought you
> still needed changes on the large message processing...
>
>
> As for the dead code.. at some point I was reading the messages from
> disk during reload of the journal. I then changed and I always have
> the first packet on memory and I use that one to parse properties and
> annotations.
>
> For converters... on AMQPLargeMessage.toCore() I will use the same
> method used to deliver a large message (the Deliverer Context).. so
> those dead code were forgotten there and not needed... there's nothing
> to be done in that case.
>
> I thought I already mentioned that in the PR.
>
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 4:13 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Revert what exactly? Reverting the PR this was raised on wouldn't
> > actually change anything, since the apparent issue isnt to do with the
> > changes made in the PR (other than it removed the dead code that looks
> > like it shouldnt be dead, since the buffer it opened/closed is still
> > referenced). Its some earlier change that must have made it the way it
> > is.
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 22:43, Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > If the large message delivering in AMQP still an issue, I would rather
> > > just revert the whole thing and keep the way it was before.. I thought
> > > it was a simple change.
> > > I'm addressing another issue I'm working on.. and I won't be able to
> > > look into that
> > >
> > >
> > > @Franz / @Robbie Gemmell ?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 4:37 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I this also still needs looked at:
> > > >
> > > > > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > > > > before another release occurs:
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> > > > >
> > > > On Fri, 10 Sept 2021 at 23:50, Clebert Suconic
> > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I have merged the change on the mirror / paging fix....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Before I release though I need to remove the CLI input I added.. some
> > > > > people complained about the retention input I asked during the
> > > > > create.. (some users were saying their scripts were broken)...
> > > > > although we have the --silent for such cases.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:51 PM Clebert Suconic
> > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm doing a retry on the same thread as the depage executor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am finishing a test I'm writing and I will send the PR tomorrow (Friday)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 12:46 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I left some mostly trivial feedback on another PR merged yesterday,
> > > > > > > #3728, but there is one comment I think also needs looked at first:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3728#discussion_r705417703
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 15:26, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let’s postpone until Monday while we investigate these.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:01 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Franz believes he found the issue, side effects from an earlier change
> > > > > > > > > made months ago being hit now, exposed by use of the affected method
> > > > > > > > > in recent changes.
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3465
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3731
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > > > > > > > > before another release occurs:
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 12:57, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Changes made on main recently (perhaps yesterday) look to have rather
> > > > > > > > > > broken some things on expanded test runs (i.e not the push/PR subset),
> > > > > > > > > > so that needs to be resolved first.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 22:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Any problem if I did the release tomorrow?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Anyone wants to include anything extra ?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:10 PM Clebert Suconic <
> > > > > > > > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to do a 2.19.0 release around Aug-30th.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Please help me out on merging stuff required before then.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > if there's something (JIRA or PR) you would really like to include
> > > > > > > > > > > > please mention it here.. (Last time someone mentioned me on the PR I
> > > > > > > > > > > > missed the notification).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I wasn't sure what you were referring on that PR.... I thought you
still needed changes on the large message processing...
As for the dead code.. at some point I was reading the messages from
disk during reload of the journal. I then changed and I always have
the first packet on memory and I use that one to parse properties and
annotations.
For converters... on AMQPLargeMessage.toCore() I will use the same
method used to deliver a large message (the Deliverer Context).. so
those dead code were forgotten there and not needed... there's nothing
to be done in that case.
I thought I already mentioned that in the PR.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 4:13 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Revert what exactly? Reverting the PR this was raised on wouldn't
> actually change anything, since the apparent issue isnt to do with the
> changes made in the PR (other than it removed the dead code that looks
> like it shouldnt be dead, since the buffer it opened/closed is still
> referenced). Its some earlier change that must have made it the way it
> is.
>
> On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 22:43, Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > If the large message delivering in AMQP still an issue, I would rather
> > just revert the whole thing and keep the way it was before.. I thought
> > it was a simple change.
> > I'm addressing another issue I'm working on.. and I won't be able to
> > look into that
> >
> >
> > @Franz / @Robbie Gemmell ?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 4:37 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I this also still needs looked at:
> > >
> > > > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > > > before another release occurs:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> > > >
> > > On Fri, 10 Sept 2021 at 23:50, Clebert Suconic
> > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have merged the change on the mirror / paging fix....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Before I release though I need to remove the CLI input I added.. some
> > > > people complained about the retention input I asked during the
> > > > create.. (some users were saying their scripts were broken)...
> > > > although we have the --silent for such cases.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:51 PM Clebert Suconic
> > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm doing a retry on the same thread as the depage executor.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am finishing a test I'm writing and I will send the PR tomorrow (Friday)
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 12:46 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I left some mostly trivial feedback on another PR merged yesterday,
> > > > > > #3728, but there is one comment I think also needs looked at first:
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3728#discussion_r705417703
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 15:26, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let’s postpone until Monday while we investigate these.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:01 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Franz believes he found the issue, side effects from an earlier change
> > > > > > > > made months ago being hit now, exposed by use of the affected method
> > > > > > > > in recent changes.
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3465
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3731
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > > > > > > > before another release occurs:
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 12:57, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Changes made on main recently (perhaps yesterday) look to have rather
> > > > > > > > > broken some things on expanded test runs (i.e not the push/PR subset),
> > > > > > > > > so that needs to be resolved first.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 22:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Any problem if I did the release tomorrow?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Anyone wants to include anything extra ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:10 PM Clebert Suconic <
> > > > > > > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I would like to do a 2.19.0 release around Aug-30th.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Please help me out on merging stuff required before then.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > if there's something (JIRA or PR) you would really like to include
> > > > > > > > > > > please mention it here.. (Last time someone mentioned me on the PR I
> > > > > > > > > > > missed the notification).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
Revert what exactly? Reverting the PR this was raised on wouldn't
actually change anything, since the apparent issue isnt to do with the
changes made in the PR (other than it removed the dead code that looks
like it shouldnt be dead, since the buffer it opened/closed is still
referenced). Its some earlier change that must have made it the way it
is.
On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 22:43, Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If the large message delivering in AMQP still an issue, I would rather
> just revert the whole thing and keep the way it was before.. I thought
> it was a simple change.
> I'm addressing another issue I'm working on.. and I won't be able to
> look into that
>
>
> @Franz / @Robbie Gemmell ?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 4:37 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I this also still needs looked at:
> >
> > > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > > before another release occurs:
> > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> > >
> > On Fri, 10 Sept 2021 at 23:50, Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have merged the change on the mirror / paging fix....
> > >
> > >
> > > Before I release though I need to remove the CLI input I added.. some
> > > people complained about the retention input I asked during the
> > > create.. (some users were saying their scripts were broken)...
> > > although we have the --silent for such cases.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:51 PM Clebert Suconic
> > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm doing a retry on the same thread as the depage executor.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am finishing a test I'm writing and I will send the PR tomorrow (Friday)
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 12:46 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I left some mostly trivial feedback on another PR merged yesterday,
> > > > > #3728, but there is one comment I think also needs looked at first:
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3728#discussion_r705417703
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 15:26, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let’s postpone until Monday while we investigate these.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:01 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Franz believes he found the issue, side effects from an earlier change
> > > > > > > made months ago being hit now, exposed by use of the affected method
> > > > > > > in recent changes.
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3465
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3731
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > > > > > > before another release occurs:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 12:57, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Changes made on main recently (perhaps yesterday) look to have rather
> > > > > > > > broken some things on expanded test runs (i.e not the push/PR subset),
> > > > > > > > so that needs to be resolved first.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 22:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Any problem if I did the release tomorrow?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anyone wants to include anything extra ?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:10 PM Clebert Suconic <
> > > > > > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I would like to do a 2.19.0 release around Aug-30th.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Please help me out on merging stuff required before then.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > if there's something (JIRA or PR) you would really like to include
> > > > > > > > > > please mention it here.. (Last time someone mentioned me on the PR I
> > > > > > > > > > missed the notification).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
If the large message delivering in AMQP still an issue, I would rather
just revert the whole thing and keep the way it was before.. I thought
it was a simple change.
I'm addressing another issue I'm working on.. and I won't be able to
look into that
@Franz / @Robbie Gemmell ?
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 4:37 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I this also still needs looked at:
>
> > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > before another release occurs:
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> >
> On Fri, 10 Sept 2021 at 23:50, Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have merged the change on the mirror / paging fix....
> >
> >
> > Before I release though I need to remove the CLI input I added.. some
> > people complained about the retention input I asked during the
> > create.. (some users were saying their scripts were broken)...
> > although we have the --silent for such cases.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:51 PM Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm doing a retry on the same thread as the depage executor.
> > >
> > >
> > > I am finishing a test I'm writing and I will send the PR tomorrow (Friday)
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 12:46 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I left some mostly trivial feedback on another PR merged yesterday,
> > > > #3728, but there is one comment I think also needs looked at first:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3728#discussion_r705417703
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 15:26, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Let’s postpone until Monday while we investigate these.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:01 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Franz believes he found the issue, side effects from an earlier change
> > > > > > made months ago being hit now, exposed by use of the affected method
> > > > > > in recent changes.
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3465
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3731
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > > > > > before another release occurs:
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 12:57, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Changes made on main recently (perhaps yesterday) look to have rather
> > > > > > > broken some things on expanded test runs (i.e not the push/PR subset),
> > > > > > > so that needs to be resolved first.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 22:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any problem if I did the release tomorrow?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anyone wants to include anything extra ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:10 PM Clebert Suconic <
> > > > > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I would like to do a 2.19.0 release around Aug-30th.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please help me out on merging stuff required before then.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > if there's something (JIRA or PR) you would really like to include
> > > > > > > > > please mention it here.. (Last time someone mentioned me on the PR I
> > > > > > > > > missed the notification).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
I this also still needs looked at:
> I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> before another release occurs:
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
>
On Fri, 10 Sept 2021 at 23:50, Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have merged the change on the mirror / paging fix....
>
>
> Before I release though I need to remove the CLI input I added.. some
> people complained about the retention input I asked during the
> create.. (some users were saying their scripts were broken)...
> although we have the --silent for such cases.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:51 PM Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm doing a retry on the same thread as the depage executor.
> >
> >
> > I am finishing a test I'm writing and I will send the PR tomorrow (Friday)
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 12:46 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I left some mostly trivial feedback on another PR merged yesterday,
> > > #3728, but there is one comment I think also needs looked at first:
> > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3728#discussion_r705417703
> > >
> > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 15:26, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Let’s postpone until Monday while we investigate these.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:01 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Franz believes he found the issue, side effects from an earlier change
> > > > > made months ago being hit now, exposed by use of the affected method
> > > > > in recent changes.
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3465
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3731
> > > > >
> > > > > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > > > > before another release occurs:
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 12:57, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Changes made on main recently (perhaps yesterday) look to have rather
> > > > > > broken some things on expanded test runs (i.e not the push/PR subset),
> > > > > > so that needs to be resolved first.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 22:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any problem if I did the release tomorrow?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anyone wants to include anything extra ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:10 PM Clebert Suconic <
> > > > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would like to do a 2.19.0 release around Aug-30th.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please help me out on merging stuff required before then.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > if there's something (JIRA or PR) you would really like to include
> > > > > > > > please mention it here.. (Last time someone mentioned me on the PR I
> > > > > > > > missed the notification).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I have merged the change on the mirror / paging fix....
Before I release though I need to remove the CLI input I added.. some
people complained about the retention input I asked during the
create.. (some users were saying their scripts were broken)...
although we have the --silent for such cases.
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:51 PM Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm doing a retry on the same thread as the depage executor.
>
>
> I am finishing a test I'm writing and I will send the PR tomorrow (Friday)
>
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 12:46 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I left some mostly trivial feedback on another PR merged yesterday,
> > #3728, but there is one comment I think also needs looked at first:
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3728#discussion_r705417703
> >
> > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 15:26, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Let’s postpone until Monday while we investigate these.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:01 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Franz believes he found the issue, side effects from an earlier change
> > > > made months ago being hit now, exposed by use of the affected method
> > > > in recent changes.
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3465
> > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3731
> > > >
> > > > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > > > before another release occurs:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 12:57, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Changes made on main recently (perhaps yesterday) look to have rather
> > > > > broken some things on expanded test runs (i.e not the push/PR subset),
> > > > > so that needs to be resolved first.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 22:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any problem if I did the release tomorrow?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyone wants to include anything extra ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:10 PM Clebert Suconic <
> > > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to do a 2.19.0 release around Aug-30th.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please help me out on merging stuff required before then.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if there's something (JIRA or PR) you would really like to include
> > > > > > > please mention it here.. (Last time someone mentioned me on the PR I
> > > > > > > missed the notification).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I'm doing a retry on the same thread as the depage executor.
I am finishing a test I'm writing and I will send the PR tomorrow (Friday)
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 12:46 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I left some mostly trivial feedback on another PR merged yesterday,
> #3728, but there is one comment I think also needs looked at first:
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3728#discussion_r705417703
>
> On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 15:26, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Let’s postpone until Monday while we investigate these.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:01 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Franz believes he found the issue, side effects from an earlier change
> > > made months ago being hit now, exposed by use of the affected method
> > > in recent changes.
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3465
> > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3731
> > >
> > > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > > before another release occurs:
> > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> > >
> > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 12:57, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Changes made on main recently (perhaps yesterday) look to have rather
> > > > broken some things on expanded test runs (i.e not the push/PR subset),
> > > > so that needs to be resolved first.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 22:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Any problem if I did the release tomorrow?
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyone wants to include anything extra ?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:10 PM Clebert Suconic <
> > > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to do a 2.19.0 release around Aug-30th.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please help me out on merging stuff required before then.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if there's something (JIRA or PR) you would really like to include
> > > > > > please mention it here.. (Last time someone mentioned me on the PR I
> > > > > > missed the notification).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
I left some mostly trivial feedback on another PR merged yesterday,
#3728, but there is one comment I think also needs looked at first:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3728#discussion_r705417703
On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 15:26, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Let’s postpone until Monday while we investigate these.
>
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:01 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Franz believes he found the issue, side effects from an earlier change
> > made months ago being hit now, exposed by use of the affected method
> > in recent changes.
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3465
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3731
> >
> > I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> > before another release occurs:
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
> >
> > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 12:57, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Changes made on main recently (perhaps yesterday) look to have rather
> > > broken some things on expanded test runs (i.e not the push/PR subset),
> > > so that needs to be resolved first.
> > >
> > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 22:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Any problem if I did the release tomorrow?
> > > >
> > > > Anyone wants to include anything extra ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:10 PM Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I would like to do a 2.19.0 release around Aug-30th.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Please help me out on merging stuff required before then.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > if there's something (JIRA or PR) you would really like to include
> > > > > please mention it here.. (Last time someone mentioned me on the PR I
> > > > > missed the notification).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> --
> Clebert Suconic
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
Let’s postpone until Monday while we investigate these.
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:01 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Franz believes he found the issue, side effects from an earlier change
> made months ago being hit now, exposed by use of the affected method
> in recent changes.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3465
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3731
>
> I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
> before another release occurs:
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
>
> On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 12:57, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Changes made on main recently (perhaps yesterday) look to have rather
> > broken some things on expanded test runs (i.e not the push/PR subset),
> > so that needs to be resolved first.
> >
> > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 22:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Any problem if I did the release tomorrow?
> > >
> > > Anyone wants to include anything extra ?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:10 PM Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would like to do a 2.19.0 release around Aug-30th.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Please help me out on merging stuff required before then.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > if there's something (JIRA or PR) you would really like to include
> > > > please mention it here.. (Last time someone mentioned me on the PR I
> > > > missed the notification).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
>
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
Franz believes he found the issue, side effects from an earlier change
made months ago being hit now, exposed by use of the affected method
in recent changes.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3465
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3731
I also think the issue noted in these comments should be investigated
before another release occurs:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-913981275
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#issuecomment-914286613
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3711#discussion_r699397216
On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 12:57, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Changes made on main recently (perhaps yesterday) look to have rather
> broken some things on expanded test runs (i.e not the push/PR subset),
> so that needs to be resolved first.
>
> On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 22:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Any problem if I did the release tomorrow?
> >
> > Anyone wants to include anything extra ?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:10 PM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to do a 2.19.0 release around Aug-30th.
> > >
> > >
> > > Please help me out on merging stuff required before then.
> > >
> > >
> > > if there's something (JIRA or PR) you would really like to include
> > > please mention it here.. (Last time someone mentioned me on the PR I
> > > missed the notification).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
Changes made on main recently (perhaps yesterday) look to have rather
broken some things on expanded test runs (i.e not the push/PR subset),
so that needs to be resolved first.
On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 22:48, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Any problem if I did the release tomorrow?
>
> Anyone wants to include anything extra ?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:10 PM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I would like to do a 2.19.0 release around Aug-30th.
> >
> >
> > Please help me out on merging stuff required before then.
> >
> >
> > if there's something (JIRA or PR) you would really like to include
> > please mention it here.. (Last time someone mentioned me on the PR I
> > missed the notification).
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
> --
> Clebert Suconic
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.19.0
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
Any problem if I did the release tomorrow?
Anyone wants to include anything extra ?
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:10 PM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I would like to do a 2.19.0 release around Aug-30th.
>
>
> Please help me out on merging stuff required before then.
>
>
> if there's something (JIRA or PR) you would really like to include
> please mention it here.. (Last time someone mentioned me on the PR I
> missed the notification).
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
--
Clebert Suconic