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 2022/09/13 15:40:10 UTC
HEADS-UP 2.25.1 Next week
I would like to do a 2.25.1 next week (monday or tuesday).
Please add any commits into 2.25.x (just pushed a new branch)...
please use cherry-pick -x on commits from main only. (git cherry-pick
-x <commit-id>)
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: HEADS-UP 2.25.1 Next week
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I won't revert the commit though.. I would rather just release from
main, with next release as 2.26.0...
I"m thinkin the new logging isn't also a breaking (3.0) change... we
should keep it as 2.x perhaps...
(not saying we can't start planning a serious 3.0 though)
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:37 AM Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The removal of the REST feature is the only breaking change, feature
> wise logging will be compatible and most won't care.
> I would suggest reverting the commit that requires a 3.0 :
> ARTEMIS-3987Removing ActiveMQ Artemis Rest from the codebase - commit e654eba
>
> and cutting the next release from main ensuring that anything that
> needs to go/be removed in 3.0, is marked deprecated.
>
> then we can plan for a 3.0 after a little gap/break
>
> On Fri, 16 Sept 2022 at 14:35, Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > hmmm... this is actually pointless.. (the 2.x branch so far).
> >
> >
> > I had to cherry-pick *everything* except to 1 commit:
> >
> > ARTEMIS-3987Removing ActiveMQ Artemis Rest from the codebase - commit e654eba
> >
> >
> >
> > We could definitely release from main right now...
> >
> >
> > and I'm wondering if we shouldn't make the logging change on a 2.x
> > branch.... I don't see much else beyond logging to warrant a 3.x
> > branch (we can certainly make a plan for a 3.x and we could / should
> > start working on it).
> >
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 4:41 PM Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > @Gary Tully unless you don't consider removing activemq-rest and
> > > changing the logging framework a change big enough to warrant a bump
> > > to 3.0. if the consensus is to keep main as 2.x we can certainly
> > > rename it back and do the release from main. I thought we should
> > > rename it based on these two things.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 11:22 AM Clebert Suconic
> > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > maini is already 3.0... removed Rest, and soon the logging change will
> > > > be put it in there... If I release from main now, it will be called
> > > > 3.0, and we will have to do a 4.0 when we bring in the logging
> > > > changes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So, I would rather cherry-pick stuff into 2.x
> > > >
> > > > (I will go ahead and remove 2.25.x now)
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 8:46 AM Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > would it make sense to just cut 2.26.0 from main?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 14 Sept 2022 at 02:11, Clebert Suconic
> > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am renaming the branch as 2.x (instead of 2.25.x).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some of the candidates to cherry-pick categorize it as an enhancement,
> > > > > > so it would make the release next week to be named 2.26.0 instead of
> > > > > > 2.25.1) (same branch, just promoting it to 2.26 due to an enhancement
> > > > > > being part of it).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > for that reason I am pushing a 2.x branch and I will remove the 2.25.x
> > > > > > branch (after a few days).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:40 AM Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to do a 2.25.1 next week (monday or tuesday).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please add any commits into 2.25.x (just pushed a new branch)...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > please use cherry-pick -x on commits from main only. (git cherry-pick
> > > > > > > -x <commit-id>)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: HEADS-UP 2.25.1 Next week
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
The removal of the REST feature is the only breaking change, feature
wise logging will be compatible and most won't care.
I would suggest reverting the commit that requires a 3.0 :
ARTEMIS-3987Removing ActiveMQ Artemis Rest from the codebase - commit e654eba
and cutting the next release from main ensuring that anything that
needs to go/be removed in 3.0, is marked deprecated.
then we can plan for a 3.0 after a little gap/break
On Fri, 16 Sept 2022 at 14:35, Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> hmmm... this is actually pointless.. (the 2.x branch so far).
>
>
> I had to cherry-pick *everything* except to 1 commit:
>
> ARTEMIS-3987Removing ActiveMQ Artemis Rest from the codebase - commit e654eba
>
>
>
> We could definitely release from main right now...
>
>
> and I'm wondering if we shouldn't make the logging change on a 2.x
> branch.... I don't see much else beyond logging to warrant a 3.x
> branch (we can certainly make a plan for a 3.x and we could / should
> start working on it).
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 4:41 PM Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > @Gary Tully unless you don't consider removing activemq-rest and
> > changing the logging framework a change big enough to warrant a bump
> > to 3.0. if the consensus is to keep main as 2.x we can certainly
> > rename it back and do the release from main. I thought we should
> > rename it based on these two things.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 11:22 AM Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > maini is already 3.0... removed Rest, and soon the logging change will
> > > be put it in there... If I release from main now, it will be called
> > > 3.0, and we will have to do a 4.0 when we bring in the logging
> > > changes.
> > >
> > >
> > > So, I would rather cherry-pick stuff into 2.x
> > >
> > > (I will go ahead and remove 2.25.x now)
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 8:46 AM Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > would it make sense to just cut 2.26.0 from main?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 14 Sept 2022 at 02:11, Clebert Suconic
> > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am renaming the branch as 2.x (instead of 2.25.x).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Some of the candidates to cherry-pick categorize it as an enhancement,
> > > > > so it would make the release next week to be named 2.26.0 instead of
> > > > > 2.25.1) (same branch, just promoting it to 2.26 due to an enhancement
> > > > > being part of it).
> > > > >
> > > > > for that reason I am pushing a 2.x branch and I will remove the 2.25.x
> > > > > branch (after a few days).
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:40 AM Clebert Suconic
> > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to do a 2.25.1 next week (monday or tuesday).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please add any commits into 2.25.x (just pushed a new branch)...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > please use cherry-pick -x on commits from main only. (git cherry-pick
> > > > > > -x <commit-id>)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
Re: HEADS-UP 2.25.1 Next week
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
and I just removed the 2.x branch
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 8:20 AM Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Let’s do this as 2.x then? Probably 2.27. I’m cutting 2.26 today.
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 10:33 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On the logging bit, I would note there are numerous cases of 2.x
>> releases adjusting stuff in ways that similarly needed specific
>> handling 'during a normal upgrade procedure' per
>> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/latest/versions.html.
>> Even the existing logging bits have clearly had multiple cases of
>> small upgrade adjustments being required. The handling that would be
>> needed this time is pretty trivial (create a provided properties file,
>> only if bringing all old broker config files along as-is and not
>> 'creating' a new broker instance) and so really along very similar
>> lines to those prior instances.
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Sept 2022 at 16:05, Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > In my opinion there is a bit of more work to do before 3.0 could be
>> > released. For example:
>> >
>> > - Remove all deprecated methods, config, etc. (this is not a small amount
>> > of work)
>> > - Update all the config with the new inclusive terms
>> >
>> > Personally I don't really see how we could do the logging change on 2.x as
>> > it's a breaking change. Folks won't be able to follow the normal upgrade
>> > procedure [1] since it will break their logging configuration.
>> >
>> > I also think that anything we want to remove in 3.0 should be deprecated
>> > for at least 1 release of 2.x.
>> >
>> >
>> > Justin
>> >
>> > [1]
>> > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/latest/upgrading.html
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 8:43 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > hmmm... this is actually pointless.. (the 2.x branch so far).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I had to cherry-pick *everything* except to 1 commit:
>> > >
>> > > ARTEMIS-3987Removing ActiveMQ Artemis Rest from the codebase - commit
>> > > e654eba
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > We could definitely release from main right now...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > and I'm wondering if we shouldn't make the logging change on a 2.x
>> > > branch.... I don't see much else beyond logging to warrant a 3.x
>> > > branch (we can certainly make a plan for a 3.x and we could / should
>> > > start working on it).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > What do you think?
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 4:41 PM Clebert Suconic
>> > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > @Gary Tully unless you don't consider removing activemq-rest and
>> > > > changing the logging framework a change big enough to warrant a bump
>> > > > to 3.0. if the consensus is to keep main as 2.x we can certainly
>> > > > rename it back and do the release from main. I thought we should
>> > > > rename it based on these two things.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 11:22 AM Clebert Suconic
>> > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > maini is already 3.0... removed Rest, and soon the logging change will
>> > > > > be put it in there... If I release from main now, it will be called
>> > > > > 3.0, and we will have to do a 4.0 when we bring in the logging
>> > > > > changes.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > So, I would rather cherry-pick stuff into 2.x
>> > > > >
>> > > > > (I will go ahead and remove 2.25.x now)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 8:46 AM Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > would it make sense to just cut 2.26.0 from main?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Wed, 14 Sept 2022 at 02:11, Clebert Suconic
>> > > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I am renaming the branch as 2.x (instead of 2.25.x).
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Some of the candidates to cherry-pick categorize it as an
>> > > enhancement,
>> > > > > > > so it would make the release next week to be named 2.26.0 instead
>> > > of
>> > > > > > > 2.25.1) (same branch, just promoting it to 2.26 due to an
>> > > enhancement
>> > > > > > > being part of it).
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > for that reason I am pushing a 2.x branch and I will remove the
>> > > 2.25.x
>> > > > > > > branch (after a few days).
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:40 AM Clebert Suconic
>> > > > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I would like to do a 2.25.1 next week (monday or tuesday).
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Please add any commits into 2.25.x (just pushed a new branch)...
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > please use cherry-pick -x on commits from main only. (git
>> > > cherry-pick
>> > > > > > > > -x <commit-id>)
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Clebert Suconic
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Clebert Suconic
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Clebert Suconic
>> > >
>> > >
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: HEADS-UP 2.25.1 Next week
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
Let’s do this as 2.x then? Probably 2.27. I’m cutting 2.26 today.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 10:33 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On the logging bit, I would note there are numerous cases of 2.x
> releases adjusting stuff in ways that similarly needed specific
> handling 'during a normal upgrade procedure' per
>
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/latest/versions.html
> .
> Even the existing logging bits have clearly had multiple cases of
> small upgrade adjustments being required. The handling that would be
> needed this time is pretty trivial (create a provided properties file,
> only if bringing all old broker config files along as-is and not
> 'creating' a new broker instance) and so really along very similar
> lines to those prior instances.
>
> On Fri, 16 Sept 2022 at 16:05, Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > In my opinion there is a bit of more work to do before 3.0 could be
> > released. For example:
> >
> > - Remove all deprecated methods, config, etc. (this is not a small
> amount
> > of work)
> > - Update all the config with the new inclusive terms
> >
> > Personally I don't really see how we could do the logging change on 2.x
> as
> > it's a breaking change. Folks won't be able to follow the normal upgrade
> > procedure [1] since it will break their logging configuration.
> >
> > I also think that anything we want to remove in 3.0 should be deprecated
> > for at least 1 release of 2.x.
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/latest/upgrading.html
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 8:43 AM Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > hmmm... this is actually pointless.. (the 2.x branch so far).
> > >
> > >
> > > I had to cherry-pick *everything* except to 1 commit:
> > >
> > > ARTEMIS-3987Removing ActiveMQ Artemis Rest from the codebase - commit
> > > e654eba
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We could definitely release from main right now...
> > >
> > >
> > > and I'm wondering if we shouldn't make the logging change on a 2.x
> > > branch.... I don't see much else beyond logging to warrant a 3.x
> > > branch (we can certainly make a plan for a 3.x and we could / should
> > > start working on it).
> > >
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 4:41 PM Clebert Suconic
> > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > @Gary Tully unless you don't consider removing activemq-rest and
> > > > changing the logging framework a change big enough to warrant a bump
> > > > to 3.0. if the consensus is to keep main as 2.x we can certainly
> > > > rename it back and do the release from main. I thought we should
> > > > rename it based on these two things.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 11:22 AM Clebert Suconic
> > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > maini is already 3.0... removed Rest, and soon the logging change
> will
> > > > > be put it in there... If I release from main now, it will be called
> > > > > 3.0, and we will have to do a 4.0 when we bring in the logging
> > > > > changes.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So, I would rather cherry-pick stuff into 2.x
> > > > >
> > > > > (I will go ahead and remove 2.25.x now)
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 8:46 AM Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > would it make sense to just cut 2.26.0 from main?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 14 Sept 2022 at 02:11, Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am renaming the branch as 2.x (instead of 2.25.x).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some of the candidates to cherry-pick categorize it as an
> > > enhancement,
> > > > > > > so it would make the release next week to be named 2.26.0
> instead
> > > of
> > > > > > > 2.25.1) (same branch, just promoting it to 2.26 due to an
> > > enhancement
> > > > > > > being part of it).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > for that reason I am pushing a 2.x branch and I will remove the
> > > 2.25.x
> > > > > > > branch (after a few days).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:40 AM Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would like to do a 2.25.1 next week (monday or tuesday).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please add any commits into 2.25.x (just pushed a new
> branch)...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > please use cherry-pick -x on commits from main only. (git
> > > cherry-pick
> > > > > > > > -x <commit-id>)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
>
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: HEADS-UP 2.25.1 Next week
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
On the logging bit, I would note there are numerous cases of 2.x
releases adjusting stuff in ways that similarly needed specific
handling 'during a normal upgrade procedure' per
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/latest/versions.html.
Even the existing logging bits have clearly had multiple cases of
small upgrade adjustments being required. The handling that would be
needed this time is pretty trivial (create a provided properties file,
only if bringing all old broker config files along as-is and not
'creating' a new broker instance) and so really along very similar
lines to those prior instances.
On Fri, 16 Sept 2022 at 16:05, Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> In my opinion there is a bit of more work to do before 3.0 could be
> released. For example:
>
> - Remove all deprecated methods, config, etc. (this is not a small amount
> of work)
> - Update all the config with the new inclusive terms
>
> Personally I don't really see how we could do the logging change on 2.x as
> it's a breaking change. Folks won't be able to follow the normal upgrade
> procedure [1] since it will break their logging configuration.
>
> I also think that anything we want to remove in 3.0 should be deprecated
> for at least 1 release of 2.x.
>
>
> Justin
>
> [1]
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/latest/upgrading.html
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 8:43 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > hmmm... this is actually pointless.. (the 2.x branch so far).
> >
> >
> > I had to cherry-pick *everything* except to 1 commit:
> >
> > ARTEMIS-3987Removing ActiveMQ Artemis Rest from the codebase - commit
> > e654eba
> >
> >
> >
> > We could definitely release from main right now...
> >
> >
> > and I'm wondering if we shouldn't make the logging change on a 2.x
> > branch.... I don't see much else beyond logging to warrant a 3.x
> > branch (we can certainly make a plan for a 3.x and we could / should
> > start working on it).
> >
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 4:41 PM Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > @Gary Tully unless you don't consider removing activemq-rest and
> > > changing the logging framework a change big enough to warrant a bump
> > > to 3.0. if the consensus is to keep main as 2.x we can certainly
> > > rename it back and do the release from main. I thought we should
> > > rename it based on these two things.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 11:22 AM Clebert Suconic
> > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > maini is already 3.0... removed Rest, and soon the logging change will
> > > > be put it in there... If I release from main now, it will be called
> > > > 3.0, and we will have to do a 4.0 when we bring in the logging
> > > > changes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So, I would rather cherry-pick stuff into 2.x
> > > >
> > > > (I will go ahead and remove 2.25.x now)
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 8:46 AM Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > would it make sense to just cut 2.26.0 from main?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 14 Sept 2022 at 02:11, Clebert Suconic
> > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am renaming the branch as 2.x (instead of 2.25.x).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some of the candidates to cherry-pick categorize it as an
> > enhancement,
> > > > > > so it would make the release next week to be named 2.26.0 instead
> > of
> > > > > > 2.25.1) (same branch, just promoting it to 2.26 due to an
> > enhancement
> > > > > > being part of it).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > for that reason I am pushing a 2.x branch and I will remove the
> > 2.25.x
> > > > > > branch (after a few days).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:40 AM Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to do a 2.25.1 next week (monday or tuesday).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please add any commits into 2.25.x (just pushed a new branch)...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > please use cherry-pick -x on commits from main only. (git
> > cherry-pick
> > > > > > > -x <commit-id>)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
Re: HEADS-UP 2.25.1 Next week
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
although I'm not 100% sure logging alone would warrant it becoming 3.0...
although logging is coming to the branch soon, and I would prefer not
having it waiting for releases... it's a significant improvement for
how we develop the codebase.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 11:40 AM Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 11:05 AM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > In my opinion there is a bit of more work to do before 3.0 could be
> > released. For example:
> >
> > - Remove all deprecated methods, config, etc. (this is not a small amount
> > of work)
> > - Update all the config with the new inclusive terms
> >
> > Personally I don't really see how we could do the logging change on 2.x as
> > it's a breaking change. Folks won't be able to follow the normal upgrade
> > procedure [1] since it will break their logging configuration.
>
> We have broken migration between versions before with a release notes
> instruction. I don't see anything different.
>
> Logging changes are coming now... if we have to make it 3.0 now, and
> 4.0 later would be the full term of changes.. So that's what I would
> prefer to do.
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: HEADS-UP 2.25.1 Next week
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 11:05 AM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> In my opinion there is a bit of more work to do before 3.0 could be
> released. For example:
>
> - Remove all deprecated methods, config, etc. (this is not a small amount
> of work)
> - Update all the config with the new inclusive terms
>
> Personally I don't really see how we could do the logging change on 2.x as
> it's a breaking change. Folks won't be able to follow the normal upgrade
> procedure [1] since it will break their logging configuration.
We have broken migration between versions before with a release notes
instruction. I don't see anything different.
Logging changes are coming now... if we have to make it 3.0 now, and
4.0 later would be the full term of changes.. So that's what I would
prefer to do.
Re: HEADS-UP 2.25.1 Next week
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
In my opinion there is a bit of more work to do before 3.0 could be
released. For example:
- Remove all deprecated methods, config, etc. (this is not a small amount
of work)
- Update all the config with the new inclusive terms
Personally I don't really see how we could do the logging change on 2.x as
it's a breaking change. Folks won't be able to follow the normal upgrade
procedure [1] since it will break their logging configuration.
I also think that anything we want to remove in 3.0 should be deprecated
for at least 1 release of 2.x.
Justin
[1]
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/latest/upgrading.html
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 8:43 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> hmmm... this is actually pointless.. (the 2.x branch so far).
>
>
> I had to cherry-pick *everything* except to 1 commit:
>
> ARTEMIS-3987Removing ActiveMQ Artemis Rest from the codebase - commit
> e654eba
>
>
>
> We could definitely release from main right now...
>
>
> and I'm wondering if we shouldn't make the logging change on a 2.x
> branch.... I don't see much else beyond logging to warrant a 3.x
> branch (we can certainly make a plan for a 3.x and we could / should
> start working on it).
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 4:41 PM Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > @Gary Tully unless you don't consider removing activemq-rest and
> > changing the logging framework a change big enough to warrant a bump
> > to 3.0. if the consensus is to keep main as 2.x we can certainly
> > rename it back and do the release from main. I thought we should
> > rename it based on these two things.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 11:22 AM Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > maini is already 3.0... removed Rest, and soon the logging change will
> > > be put it in there... If I release from main now, it will be called
> > > 3.0, and we will have to do a 4.0 when we bring in the logging
> > > changes.
> > >
> > >
> > > So, I would rather cherry-pick stuff into 2.x
> > >
> > > (I will go ahead and remove 2.25.x now)
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 8:46 AM Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > would it make sense to just cut 2.26.0 from main?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 14 Sept 2022 at 02:11, Clebert Suconic
> > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am renaming the branch as 2.x (instead of 2.25.x).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Some of the candidates to cherry-pick categorize it as an
> enhancement,
> > > > > so it would make the release next week to be named 2.26.0 instead
> of
> > > > > 2.25.1) (same branch, just promoting it to 2.26 due to an
> enhancement
> > > > > being part of it).
> > > > >
> > > > > for that reason I am pushing a 2.x branch and I will remove the
> 2.25.x
> > > > > branch (after a few days).
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:40 AM Clebert Suconic
> > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to do a 2.25.1 next week (monday or tuesday).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please add any commits into 2.25.x (just pushed a new branch)...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > please use cherry-pick -x on commits from main only. (git
> cherry-pick
> > > > > > -x <commit-id>)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
>
Re: HEADS-UP 2.25.1 Next week
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
Yep if you want to you could certainly release a 2.26.0 from main
instead of a 2.x branch in the current (essentially identical) state
and create a branch later if/when actually needed.
On Fri, 16 Sept 2022 at 14:35, Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> hmmm... this is actually pointless.. (the 2.x branch so far).
>
>
> I had to cherry-pick *everything* except to 1 commit:
>
> ARTEMIS-3987Removing ActiveMQ Artemis Rest from the codebase - commit e654eba
>
>
>
> We could definitely release from main right now...
>
>
> and I'm wondering if we shouldn't make the logging change on a 2.x
> branch.... I don't see much else beyond logging to warrant a 3.x
> branch (we can certainly make a plan for a 3.x and we could / should
> start working on it).
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 4:41 PM Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > @Gary Tully unless you don't consider removing activemq-rest and
> > changing the logging framework a change big enough to warrant a bump
> > to 3.0. if the consensus is to keep main as 2.x we can certainly
> > rename it back and do the release from main. I thought we should
> > rename it based on these two things.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 11:22 AM Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > maini is already 3.0... removed Rest, and soon the logging change will
> > > be put it in there... If I release from main now, it will be called
> > > 3.0, and we will have to do a 4.0 when we bring in the logging
> > > changes.
> > >
> > >
> > > So, I would rather cherry-pick stuff into 2.x
> > >
> > > (I will go ahead and remove 2.25.x now)
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 8:46 AM Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > would it make sense to just cut 2.26.0 from main?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 14 Sept 2022 at 02:11, Clebert Suconic
> > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am renaming the branch as 2.x (instead of 2.25.x).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Some of the candidates to cherry-pick categorize it as an enhancement,
> > > > > so it would make the release next week to be named 2.26.0 instead of
> > > > > 2.25.1) (same branch, just promoting it to 2.26 due to an enhancement
> > > > > being part of it).
> > > > >
> > > > > for that reason I am pushing a 2.x branch and I will remove the 2.25.x
> > > > > branch (after a few days).
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:40 AM Clebert Suconic
> > > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to do a 2.25.1 next week (monday or tuesday).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please add any commits into 2.25.x (just pushed a new branch)...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > please use cherry-pick -x on commits from main only. (git cherry-pick
> > > > > > -x <commit-id>)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
Re: HEADS-UP 2.25.1 Next week
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
hmmm... this is actually pointless.. (the 2.x branch so far).
I had to cherry-pick *everything* except to 1 commit:
ARTEMIS-3987Removing ActiveMQ Artemis Rest from the codebase - commit e654eba
We could definitely release from main right now...
and I'm wondering if we shouldn't make the logging change on a 2.x
branch.... I don't see much else beyond logging to warrant a 3.x
branch (we can certainly make a plan for a 3.x and we could / should
start working on it).
What do you think?
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 4:41 PM Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> @Gary Tully unless you don't consider removing activemq-rest and
> changing the logging framework a change big enough to warrant a bump
> to 3.0. if the consensus is to keep main as 2.x we can certainly
> rename it back and do the release from main. I thought we should
> rename it based on these two things.
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 11:22 AM Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > maini is already 3.0... removed Rest, and soon the logging change will
> > be put it in there... If I release from main now, it will be called
> > 3.0, and we will have to do a 4.0 when we bring in the logging
> > changes.
> >
> >
> > So, I would rather cherry-pick stuff into 2.x
> >
> > (I will go ahead and remove 2.25.x now)
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 8:46 AM Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > would it make sense to just cut 2.26.0 from main?
> > >
> > > On Wed, 14 Sept 2022 at 02:11, Clebert Suconic
> > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am renaming the branch as 2.x (instead of 2.25.x).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Some of the candidates to cherry-pick categorize it as an enhancement,
> > > > so it would make the release next week to be named 2.26.0 instead of
> > > > 2.25.1) (same branch, just promoting it to 2.26 due to an enhancement
> > > > being part of it).
> > > >
> > > > for that reason I am pushing a 2.x branch and I will remove the 2.25.x
> > > > branch (after a few days).
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:40 AM Clebert Suconic
> > > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to do a 2.25.1 next week (monday or tuesday).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Please add any commits into 2.25.x (just pushed a new branch)...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > please use cherry-pick -x on commits from main only. (git cherry-pick
> > > > > -x <commit-id>)
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: HEADS-UP 2.25.1 Next week
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
@Gary Tully unless you don't consider removing activemq-rest and
changing the logging framework a change big enough to warrant a bump
to 3.0. if the consensus is to keep main as 2.x we can certainly
rename it back and do the release from main. I thought we should
rename it based on these two things.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 11:22 AM Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> maini is already 3.0... removed Rest, and soon the logging change will
> be put it in there... If I release from main now, it will be called
> 3.0, and we will have to do a 4.0 when we bring in the logging
> changes.
>
>
> So, I would rather cherry-pick stuff into 2.x
>
> (I will go ahead and remove 2.25.x now)
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 8:46 AM Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > would it make sense to just cut 2.26.0 from main?
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Sept 2022 at 02:11, Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I am renaming the branch as 2.x (instead of 2.25.x).
> > >
> > >
> > > Some of the candidates to cherry-pick categorize it as an enhancement,
> > > so it would make the release next week to be named 2.26.0 instead of
> > > 2.25.1) (same branch, just promoting it to 2.26 due to an enhancement
> > > being part of it).
> > >
> > > for that reason I am pushing a 2.x branch and I will remove the 2.25.x
> > > branch (after a few days).
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:40 AM Clebert Suconic
> > > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would like to do a 2.25.1 next week (monday or tuesday).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Please add any commits into 2.25.x (just pushed a new branch)...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > please use cherry-pick -x on commits from main only. (git cherry-pick
> > > > -x <commit-id>)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: HEADS-UP 2.25.1 Next week
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
maini is already 3.0... removed Rest, and soon the logging change will
be put it in there... If I release from main now, it will be called
3.0, and we will have to do a 4.0 when we bring in the logging
changes.
So, I would rather cherry-pick stuff into 2.x
(I will go ahead and remove 2.25.x now)
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 8:46 AM Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> would it make sense to just cut 2.26.0 from main?
>
> On Wed, 14 Sept 2022 at 02:11, Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I am renaming the branch as 2.x (instead of 2.25.x).
> >
> >
> > Some of the candidates to cherry-pick categorize it as an enhancement,
> > so it would make the release next week to be named 2.26.0 instead of
> > 2.25.1) (same branch, just promoting it to 2.26 due to an enhancement
> > being part of it).
> >
> > for that reason I am pushing a 2.x branch and I will remove the 2.25.x
> > branch (after a few days).
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:40 AM Clebert Suconic
> > <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I would like to do a 2.25.1 next week (monday or tuesday).
> > >
> > >
> > > Please add any commits into 2.25.x (just pushed a new branch)...
> > >
> > >
> > > please use cherry-pick -x on commits from main only. (git cherry-pick
> > > -x <commit-id>)
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: HEADS-UP 2.25.1 Next week
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
would it make sense to just cut 2.26.0 from main?
On Wed, 14 Sept 2022 at 02:11, Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am renaming the branch as 2.x (instead of 2.25.x).
>
>
> Some of the candidates to cherry-pick categorize it as an enhancement,
> so it would make the release next week to be named 2.26.0 instead of
> 2.25.1) (same branch, just promoting it to 2.26 due to an enhancement
> being part of it).
>
> for that reason I am pushing a 2.x branch and I will remove the 2.25.x
> branch (after a few days).
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:40 AM Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to do a 2.25.1 next week (monday or tuesday).
> >
> >
> > Please add any commits into 2.25.x (just pushed a new branch)...
> >
> >
> > please use cherry-pick -x on commits from main only. (git cherry-pick
> > -x <commit-id>)
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
Re: HEADS-UP 2.25.1 Next week
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I am renaming the branch as 2.x (instead of 2.25.x).
Some of the candidates to cherry-pick categorize it as an enhancement,
so it would make the release next week to be named 2.26.0 instead of
2.25.1) (same branch, just promoting it to 2.26 due to an enhancement
being part of it).
for that reason I am pushing a 2.x branch and I will remove the 2.25.x
branch (after a few days).
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:40 AM Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would like to do a 2.25.1 next week (monday or tuesday).
>
>
> Please add any commits into 2.25.x (just pushed a new branch)...
>
>
> please use cherry-pick -x on commits from main only. (git cherry-pick
> -x <commit-id>)
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic