You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Justin Ross <jr...@apache.org> on 2013/01/10 13:48:42 UTC

0.20 release update - proposed final RC4 is available

Hi, everyone.  The proposed final 0.20 release candidate, RC4, is
available here:

  http://people.apache.org/~jross/qpid-0.20-rc4/

My testing showed everything in good shape, including the proton
integration.

RC4 has the following changes versus RC3:

  r1430909 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
  QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may produce
  suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
  without good cause

  r1430904 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
  QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may produce
  suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
  without good cause

  r1430554 | astitcher | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
  QPID-4095: Move the directory iteration into FileSysDir

  r1430452 | jross | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 1 line
  QPID-4368: Add missing dist file

  r1430321 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
  QPID-4521: ensure that the routing key is properly passed to the
  alternate Topic exchange by the adapter. Add unit tests for the
  adapter methods.

  r1430320 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
  QPID-4519: return true for VirtualHost MBean isStatusEnabled, dont
  update stats when doing so, and stop using a synchronized method as a
  result

  r1430319 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
  QPID-4512: stop the delete visitor indicating completion upon the
  first matching queue entry, or any for that matter: it needs to check
  them all.

  r1424598 | kgiusti | (Thu, 20 Dec 2012) | 1 line
  NO-JIRA: merge compile fix from trunk

  r1423964 | robbie | (Wed, 19 Dec 2012) | 6 lines
  QPID-4511: move the broker-plugins lib dir under build/scratch to
  prevent it being included in the binary produced by 'ant release'.

The artifacts are signed, and if approved by vote, these bits
precisely would ship as 0.20 GA.  I'll follow this with a separate
[VOTE] mail.

Thanks Alex, Keith, Robbie, and Ken for posting your test outcomes on
the list.  It is very much appreciated.  Please try RC4 and prepare to
vote!

Thanks,
Justin

---
0.20 release page: https://cwiki.apache.org/qpid/020-release.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org

Re: 0.20 release update - proposed final RC4 is available

Posted by Justin Ross <jr...@redhat.com>.

Hi, Robbie.

Yes.  Please go ahead and commit the change on the release branch.  Even 
if by some miracle we can avoid RC5, there's no harm in having it there.

Justin

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013, Robbie Gemmell wrote:

> Hi Justin,
>
> I haven't had a chance to look at the Java bits yet, but if there were to
> be another RC based on the previous replies could I tag on a request for
> inclusion of the documentation added in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4502 ?
>
> Robbie
> On 10 Jan 2013 12:48, "Justin Ross" <jr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi, everyone.  The proposed final 0.20 release candidate, RC4, is
>> available here:
>>
>>   http://people.apache.org/~jross/qpid-0.20-rc4/
>>
>> My testing showed everything in good shape, including the proton
>> integration.
>>
>> RC4 has the following changes versus RC3:
>>
>>   r1430909 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>>   QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may produce
>>   suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
>>   without good cause
>>
>>   r1430904 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>>   QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may produce
>>   suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
>>   without good cause
>>
>>   r1430554 | astitcher | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>>   QPID-4095: Move the directory iteration into FileSysDir
>>
>>   r1430452 | jross | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 1 line
>>   QPID-4368: Add missing dist file
>>
>>   r1430321 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>>   QPID-4521: ensure that the routing key is properly passed to the
>>   alternate Topic exchange by the adapter. Add unit tests for the
>>   adapter methods.
>>
>>   r1430320 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>>   QPID-4519: return true for VirtualHost MBean isStatusEnabled, dont
>>   update stats when doing so, and stop using a synchronized method as a
>>   result
>>
>>   r1430319 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>>   QPID-4512: stop the delete visitor indicating completion upon the
>>   first matching queue entry, or any for that matter: it needs to check
>>   them all.
>>
>>   r1424598 | kgiusti | (Thu, 20 Dec 2012) | 1 line
>>   NO-JIRA: merge compile fix from trunk
>>
>>   r1423964 | robbie | (Wed, 19 Dec 2012) | 6 lines
>>   QPID-4511: move the broker-plugins lib dir under build/scratch to
>>   prevent it being included in the binary produced by 'ant release'.
>>
>> The artifacts are signed, and if approved by vote, these bits
>> precisely would ship as 0.20 GA.  I'll follow this with a separate
>> [VOTE] mail.
>>
>> Thanks Alex, Keith, Robbie, and Ken for posting your test outcomes on
>> the list.  It is very much appreciated.  Please try RC4 and prepare to
>> vote!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>>
>> ---
>> 0.20 release page: https://cwiki.apache.org/qpid/020-release.html
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>>
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org

Re: 0.20 release update - proposed final RC4 is available

Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.

Hi Justin,

I haven't had a chance to look at the Java bits yet, but if there were to
be another RC based on the previous replies could I tag on a request for
inclusion of the documentation added in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4502 ?

Robbie
On 10 Jan 2013 12:48, "Justin Ross" <jr...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi, everyone.  The proposed final 0.20 release candidate, RC4, is
> available here:
>
>   http://people.apache.org/~jross/qpid-0.20-rc4/
>
> My testing showed everything in good shape, including the proton
> integration.
>
> RC4 has the following changes versus RC3:
>
>   r1430909 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>   QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may produce
>   suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
>   without good cause
>
>   r1430904 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>   QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may produce
>   suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
>   without good cause
>
>   r1430554 | astitcher | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>   QPID-4095: Move the directory iteration into FileSysDir
>
>   r1430452 | jross | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 1 line
>   QPID-4368: Add missing dist file
>
>   r1430321 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>   QPID-4521: ensure that the routing key is properly passed to the
>   alternate Topic exchange by the adapter. Add unit tests for the
>   adapter methods.
>
>   r1430320 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>   QPID-4519: return true for VirtualHost MBean isStatusEnabled, dont
>   update stats when doing so, and stop using a synchronized method as a
>   result
>
>   r1430319 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>   QPID-4512: stop the delete visitor indicating completion upon the
>   first matching queue entry, or any for that matter: it needs to check
>   them all.
>
>   r1424598 | kgiusti | (Thu, 20 Dec 2012) | 1 line
>   NO-JIRA: merge compile fix from trunk
>
>   r1423964 | robbie | (Wed, 19 Dec 2012) | 6 lines
>   QPID-4511: move the broker-plugins lib dir under build/scratch to
>   prevent it being included in the binary produced by 'ant release'.
>
> The artifacts are signed, and if approved by vote, these bits
> precisely would ship as 0.20 GA.  I'll follow this with a separate
> [VOTE] mail.
>
> Thanks Alex, Keith, Robbie, and Ken for posting your test outcomes on
> the list.  It is very much appreciated.  Please try RC4 and prepare to
> vote!
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> ---
> 0.20 release page: https://cwiki.apache.org/qpid/020-release.html
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>

Re: 0.20 release update - proposed final RC4 is available

Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.

I have put an initial patch up on the JIRA, could you take a look? I
decided to keep the rar filename as-is because it seemed easier all round.

Robbie

On 22 January 2013 16:00, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:

>
> On Jan 22, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ok, thanks Weston. Though I would tend to prefer changing both, to
> qpid-jca
> > for the jar and qpid-jca-ra for the rar, I'm happy enough to keep either
> > the rar or jar (renaming the source dir to ra) filename the same as it is
> > now if it is going to be less work for people to pick up afterwards.
> Having
> > different names (excluding suffix) for the two will enable having them as
> > separate modules / groups of artifacts, so at least one of them needs to
> > change.
> >
> Yeah, good point.  As per my last email, our internal QE department is ok
> with whatever
> scheme we choose so I think your suggestions make the most sense and am
> all for it.
>
> Again, thanks for giving this the amount of thought you have. All looks
> good.
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
> > Robbie
> >
> >
> > On 22 January 2013 15:39, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jan 22, 2013, at 10:33 AM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> So, I'd like to actually do some work on this over the weekend to
> ensure
> >> we
> >>> can publish it in future, which warrants having the previously
> mentioned
> >>> discussion :)
> >> Yep.
> >>>
> >>> I propose to publish the jar and its sources as one set of maven
> >> artifacts,
> >>> with the rar published separately as another.
> >>>
> >> Makes perfect sense as the RAR is nothing more than it's constituent
> >> jars/descriptors just packaged for JEE compliance.
> >>
> >>> For the jar, I would retain the jca module structure as it exists now,
> >> but
> >>> changing its jar artifact to actually be called 'jca' instead of hacked
> >> to
> >>> become 'ra as it is now', giving qpid-jca-0.XX.jar as the jar output.
> >> This
> >>> would allow removing all hackery involved with renaming the jar file in
> >> the
> >>> tree and simplify generation of the maven artifacts for it.
> >>>
> >> Agree in principle. We have internal build processes/testing that may
> have
> >> to change as a result so to be a good citizen
> >> I would like to have the discussion with my colleagues but I don't see
> it
> >> as being an issue.
> >>
> >>> For the rar, I would add continue to have the standard jca module build
> >>> produce the rar, adding an additional step to output maven artifacts
> for
> >>> the rar while generating the maven output for the jar. I would propose
> >>> either keeping the existing name of qpid-ra-0.XX.rar for compatibility
> or
> >>> change it to something like qpid-jca-ra-0.XX.rar to better denote its
> >>> linkaage with the jca module.
> >>>
> >> Much like the point above, I agree I just need to run it by those
> involved
> >> in our internal process. Note, if we do change names the documentation
> will
> >> have to change as a result, but that is not that big of a deal either.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >> Thanks for taking the time to think about this.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Weston
> >>> Robbie
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 16 January 2013 12:32, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Robbie,
> >>>>       All great questions.  Wholeheartedly agree on
> >>>>
> >>>>> Going back to where I started, I think the questions and build
> process
> >>>>> change required to start doing this on a long term basis warrant a
> bit
> >> of
> >>>>> discussion and thought, to the extent that I would hold fire on
> pushing
> >>>> the
> >>>>> artifact in this release.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's table for this release and discuss further for a long term
> >> solution.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for your response, again, great points/questions all around.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> -W
> >>>> On Jan 16, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemmell@gmail.com
> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Weston,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I had a think about / quick look at doing this, and cant help but
> think
> >>>> it
> >>>>> has now missed the boat.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In terms of putting up the artifact we have in the 'java release'
> tar,
> >> it
> >>>>> shouldn't be too hard to do on an ad-hoc basis, however doing it
> >> properly
> >>>>> on an ongoing basis it isnt so simple and raised several questions
> and
> >>>>> things to consider that would stop me from jumping on publishing it
> >>>> ad-hoc
> >>>>> for 0.20.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Producing the output as part of the normal build would be a good bit
> >> more
> >>>>> involved and rather contrived compared to what is there now for the
> >>>> clients
> >>>>> and broker modules, both due to the namaing split (jca vs ra) present
> >> in
> >>>>> the jca module, and the fact its the first and only module producing
> >>>>> multiple artifacts (inluding non-jar artifacts, i.e the rar, which
> >>>> require
> >>>>> a very slightly different pom) that happens to have the same name but
> >>>>> different extension as other artifacts in the module (the jar), and
> >> also
> >>>>> has artifacts that dont have sources jars to go with it (the rar).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Some of the questions I had when thinking about it were:
> >>>>> - Do we publish the jar as well?
> >>>>> It seems at least some other projects do, possibly as the sources are
> >>>> only
> >>>>> for the jar and not the rar.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Should the rar and the jar really have the same name (excluding the
> >>>>> extension) if we do?
> >>>>> It seems at least some projects artifacts dont (e.g the rar is built
> >> by a
> >>>>> maven module for the rar that depends on a module for the jar).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - What would we call it?
> >>>>> qpid-ra isnt necessarily my first pick for a maven artifact name, but
> >>>> thats
> >>>>> what it would currently be.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That last question and the earlier mentioned complications in
> actually
> >>>>> generating maven artifacts for the jca module lead me on to a related
> >>>> topic
> >>>>> I have been meaning to bring up for some time. The naming split
> within
> >>>> the
> >>>>> jca module is quite annoying, and over complicates things in general
> >> but
> >>>>> far more so in situations such as this. I think it is time we either
> >>>>> renamed the module to ra (if we think the historic file name is the
> >> most
> >>>>> important thing), or change the output filenames (if we think the
> >> source
> >>>>> tree module name is the most important thing). If we were to change
> the
> >>>>> filenames in any way (including giving the rar and jar different
> names)
> >>>>> then that would be another reason I would hold off publishing it with
> >> the
> >>>>> current naming.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Going back to where I started, I think the questions and build
> process
> >>>>> change required to start doing this on a long term basis warrant a
> bit
> >> of
> >>>>> discussion and thought, to the extent that I would hold fire on
> pushing
> >>>> the
> >>>>> artifact in this release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Robbie
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 15 January 2013 17:09, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Robbie,
> >>>>>>      There is a JIRA
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4445
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Basically requesting that the JCA binaries also be uploaded to the
> >> Maven
> >>>>>> repository. I am more than willing to look at this, but if you have
> >>>>>> familiarity with the process it might go much faster.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Weston
> >>>>>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Robbie Gemmell <
> >> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The maven binaries for the Java clients and broker are staged at:
> >>>>>>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheqpid-133
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Robbie
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 10 January 2013 12:48, Justin Ross <jr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi, everyone.  The proposed final 0.20 release candidate, RC4, is
> >>>>>>>> available here:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jross/qpid-0.20-rc4/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> My testing showed everything in good shape, including the proton
> >>>>>>>> integration.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> RC4 has the following changes versus RC3:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> r1430909 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
> >>>>>>>> QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may
> >> produce
> >>>>>>>> suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
> >>>>>>>> without good cause
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> r1430904 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
> >>>>>>>> QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may
> >> produce
> >>>>>>>> suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
> >>>>>>>> without good cause
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> r1430554 | astitcher | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
> >>>>>>>> QPID-4095: Move the directory iteration into FileSysDir
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> r1430452 | jross | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 1 line
> >>>>>>>> QPID-4368: Add missing dist file
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> r1430321 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
> >>>>>>>> QPID-4521: ensure that the routing key is properly passed to the
> >>>>>>>> alternate Topic exchange by the adapter. Add unit tests for the
> >>>>>>>> adapter methods.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> r1430320 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
> >>>>>>>> QPID-4519: return true for VirtualHost MBean isStatusEnabled, dont
> >>>>>>>> update stats when doing so, and stop using a synchronized method
> as
> >> a
> >>>>>>>> result
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> r1430319 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
> >>>>>>>> QPID-4512: stop the delete visitor indicating completion upon the
> >>>>>>>> first matching queue entry, or any for that matter: it needs to
> >> check
> >>>>>>>> them all.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> r1424598 | kgiusti | (Thu, 20 Dec 2012) | 1 line
> >>>>>>>> NO-JIRA: merge compile fix from trunk
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> r1423964 | robbie | (Wed, 19 Dec 2012) | 6 lines
> >>>>>>>> QPID-4511: move the broker-plugins lib dir under build/scratch to
> >>>>>>>> prevent it being included in the binary produced by 'ant release'.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The artifacts are signed, and if approved by vote, these bits
> >>>>>>>> precisely would ship as 0.20 GA.  I'll follow this with a separate
> >>>>>>>> [VOTE] mail.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks Alex, Keith, Robbie, and Ken for posting your test outcomes
> >> on
> >>>>>>>> the list.  It is very much appreciated.  Please try RC4 and
> prepare
> >> to
> >>>>>>>> vote!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>> Justin
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>> 0.20 release page: https://cwiki.apache.org/qpid/020-release.html
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>

Re: 0.20 release update - proposed final RC4 is available

Posted by "Weston M. Price" <wp...@redhat.com>.

On Jan 22, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok, thanks Weston. Though I would tend to prefer changing both, to qpid-jca
> for the jar and qpid-jca-ra for the rar, I'm happy enough to keep either
> the rar or jar (renaming the source dir to ra) filename the same as it is
> now if it is going to be less work for people to pick up afterwards. Having
> different names (excluding suffix) for the two will enable having them as
> separate modules / groups of artifacts, so at least one of them needs to
> change.
> 
Yeah, good point.  As per my last email, our internal QE department is ok with whatever
scheme we choose so I think your suggestions make the most sense and am all for it. 

Again, thanks for giving this the amount of thought you have. All looks good. 

Regards,

Weston
> Robbie
> 
> 
> On 22 January 2013 15:39, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jan 22, 2013, at 10:33 AM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> So, I'd like to actually do some work on this over the weekend to ensure
>> we
>>> can publish it in future, which warrants having the previously mentioned
>>> discussion :)
>> Yep.
>>> 
>>> I propose to publish the jar and its sources as one set of maven
>> artifacts,
>>> with the rar published separately as another.
>>> 
>> Makes perfect sense as the RAR is nothing more than it's constituent
>> jars/descriptors just packaged for JEE compliance.
>> 
>>> For the jar, I would retain the jca module structure as it exists now,
>> but
>>> changing its jar artifact to actually be called 'jca' instead of hacked
>> to
>>> become 'ra as it is now', giving qpid-jca-0.XX.jar as the jar output.
>> This
>>> would allow removing all hackery involved with renaming the jar file in
>> the
>>> tree and simplify generation of the maven artifacts for it.
>>> 
>> Agree in principle. We have internal build processes/testing that may have
>> to change as a result so to be a good citizen
>> I would like to have the discussion with my colleagues but I don't see it
>> as being an issue.
>> 
>>> For the rar, I would add continue to have the standard jca module build
>>> produce the rar, adding an additional step to output maven artifacts for
>>> the rar while generating the maven output for the jar. I would propose
>>> either keeping the existing name of qpid-ra-0.XX.rar for compatibility or
>>> change it to something like qpid-jca-ra-0.XX.rar to better denote its
>>> linkaage with the jca module.
>>> 
>> Much like the point above, I agree I just need to run it by those involved
>> in our internal process. Note, if we do change names the documentation will
>> have to change as a result, but that is not that big of a deal either.
>> 
>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>>> 
>> Thanks for taking the time to think about this.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Weston
>>> Robbie
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 16 January 2013 12:32, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Robbie,
>>>>       All great questions.  Wholeheartedly agree on
>>>> 
>>>>> Going back to where I started, I think the questions and build process
>>>>> change required to start doing this on a long term basis warrant a bit
>> of
>>>>> discussion and thought, to the extent that I would hold fire on pushing
>>>> the
>>>>> artifact in this release.
>>>> 
>>>> Let's table for this release and discuss further for a long term
>> solution.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for your response, again, great points/questions all around.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> -W
>>>> On Jan 16, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Weston,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I had a think about / quick look at doing this, and cant help but think
>>>> it
>>>>> has now missed the boat.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In terms of putting up the artifact we have in the 'java release' tar,
>> it
>>>>> shouldn't be too hard to do on an ad-hoc basis, however doing it
>> properly
>>>>> on an ongoing basis it isnt so simple and raised several questions and
>>>>> things to consider that would stop me from jumping on publishing it
>>>> ad-hoc
>>>>> for 0.20.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Producing the output as part of the normal build would be a good bit
>> more
>>>>> involved and rather contrived compared to what is there now for the
>>>> clients
>>>>> and broker modules, both due to the namaing split (jca vs ra) present
>> in
>>>>> the jca module, and the fact its the first and only module producing
>>>>> multiple artifacts (inluding non-jar artifacts, i.e the rar, which
>>>> require
>>>>> a very slightly different pom) that happens to have the same name but
>>>>> different extension as other artifacts in the module (the jar), and
>> also
>>>>> has artifacts that dont have sources jars to go with it (the rar).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Some of the questions I had when thinking about it were:
>>>>> - Do we publish the jar as well?
>>>>> It seems at least some other projects do, possibly as the sources are
>>>> only
>>>>> for the jar and not the rar.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - Should the rar and the jar really have the same name (excluding the
>>>>> extension) if we do?
>>>>> It seems at least some projects artifacts dont (e.g the rar is built
>> by a
>>>>> maven module for the rar that depends on a module for the jar).
>>>>> 
>>>>> - What would we call it?
>>>>> qpid-ra isnt necessarily my first pick for a maven artifact name, but
>>>> thats
>>>>> what it would currently be.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That last question and the earlier mentioned complications in actually
>>>>> generating maven artifacts for the jca module lead me on to a related
>>>> topic
>>>>> I have been meaning to bring up for some time. The naming split within
>>>> the
>>>>> jca module is quite annoying, and over complicates things in general
>> but
>>>>> far more so in situations such as this. I think it is time we either
>>>>> renamed the module to ra (if we think the historic file name is the
>> most
>>>>> important thing), or change the output filenames (if we think the
>> source
>>>>> tree module name is the most important thing). If we were to change the
>>>>> filenames in any way (including giving the rar and jar different names)
>>>>> then that would be another reason I would hold off publishing it with
>> the
>>>>> current naming.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Going back to where I started, I think the questions and build process
>>>>> change required to start doing this on a long term basis warrant a bit
>> of
>>>>> discussion and thought, to the extent that I would hold fire on pushing
>>>> the
>>>>> artifact in this release.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Robbie
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 15 January 2013 17:09, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Robbie,
>>>>>>      There is a JIRA
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4445
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Basically requesting that the JCA binaries also be uploaded to the
>> Maven
>>>>>> repository. I am more than willing to look at this, but if you have
>>>>>> familiarity with the process it might go much faster.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Weston
>>>>>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Robbie Gemmell <
>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The maven binaries for the Java clients and broker are staged at:
>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheqpid-133
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Robbie
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 10 January 2013 12:48, Justin Ross <jr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi, everyone.  The proposed final 0.20 release candidate, RC4, is
>>>>>>>> available here:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jross/qpid-0.20-rc4/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> My testing showed everything in good shape, including the proton
>>>>>>>> integration.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> RC4 has the following changes versus RC3:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> r1430909 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>>>>>>>> QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may
>> produce
>>>>>>>> suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
>>>>>>>> without good cause
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> r1430904 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>>>>>>>> QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may
>> produce
>>>>>>>> suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
>>>>>>>> without good cause
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> r1430554 | astitcher | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>>>>>>>> QPID-4095: Move the directory iteration into FileSysDir
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> r1430452 | jross | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 1 line
>>>>>>>> QPID-4368: Add missing dist file
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> r1430321 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>>>>>>>> QPID-4521: ensure that the routing key is properly passed to the
>>>>>>>> alternate Topic exchange by the adapter. Add unit tests for the
>>>>>>>> adapter methods.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> r1430320 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>>>>>>>> QPID-4519: return true for VirtualHost MBean isStatusEnabled, dont
>>>>>>>> update stats when doing so, and stop using a synchronized method as
>> a
>>>>>>>> result
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> r1430319 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>>>>>>>> QPID-4512: stop the delete visitor indicating completion upon the
>>>>>>>> first matching queue entry, or any for that matter: it needs to
>> check
>>>>>>>> them all.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> r1424598 | kgiusti | (Thu, 20 Dec 2012) | 1 line
>>>>>>>> NO-JIRA: merge compile fix from trunk
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> r1423964 | robbie | (Wed, 19 Dec 2012) | 6 lines
>>>>>>>> QPID-4511: move the broker-plugins lib dir under build/scratch to
>>>>>>>> prevent it being included in the binary produced by 'ant release'.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The artifacts are signed, and if approved by vote, these bits
>>>>>>>> precisely would ship as 0.20 GA.  I'll follow this with a separate
>>>>>>>> [VOTE] mail.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks Alex, Keith, Robbie, and Ken for posting your test outcomes
>> on
>>>>>>>> the list.  It is very much appreciated.  Please try RC4 and prepare
>> to
>>>>>>>> vote!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Justin
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> 0.20 release page: https://cwiki.apache.org/qpid/020-release.html
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>> 
>> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org

Re: 0.20 release update - proposed final RC4 is available

Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.

Ok, thanks Weston. Though I would tend to prefer changing both, to qpid-jca
for the jar and qpid-jca-ra for the rar, I'm happy enough to keep either
the rar or jar (renaming the source dir to ra) filename the same as it is
now if it is going to be less work for people to pick up afterwards. Having
different names (excluding suffix) for the two will enable having them as
separate modules / groups of artifacts, so at least one of them needs to
change.

Robbie


On 22 January 2013 15:39, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:

>
> On Jan 22, 2013, at 10:33 AM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > So, I'd like to actually do some work on this over the weekend to ensure
> we
> > can publish it in future, which warrants having the previously mentioned
> > discussion :)
> Yep.
> >
> > I propose to publish the jar and its sources as one set of maven
> artifacts,
> > with the rar published separately as another.
> >
> Makes perfect sense as the RAR is nothing more than it's constituent
> jars/descriptors just packaged for JEE compliance.
>
> > For the jar, I would retain the jca module structure as it exists now,
> but
> > changing its jar artifact to actually be called 'jca' instead of hacked
> to
> > become 'ra as it is now', giving qpid-jca-0.XX.jar as the jar output.
> This
> > would allow removing all hackery involved with renaming the jar file in
> the
> > tree and simplify generation of the maven artifacts for it.
> >
> Agree in principle. We have internal build processes/testing that may have
> to change as a result so to be a good citizen
> I would like to have the discussion with my colleagues but I don't see it
> as being an issue.
>
> > For the rar, I would add continue to have the standard jca module build
> > produce the rar, adding an additional step to output maven artifacts for
> > the rar while generating the maven output for the jar. I would propose
> > either keeping the existing name of qpid-ra-0.XX.rar for compatibility or
> > change it to something like qpid-jca-ra-0.XX.rar to better denote its
> > linkaage with the jca module.
> >
> Much like the point above, I agree I just need to run it by those involved
> in our internal process. Note, if we do change names the documentation will
> have to change as a result, but that is not that big of a deal either.
>
>
> > Thoughts?
> >
> Thanks for taking the time to think about this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
> > Robbie
> >
> >
> > On 16 January 2013 12:32, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Robbie,
> >>        All great questions.  Wholeheartedly agree on
> >>
> >>> Going back to where I started, I think the questions and build process
> >>> change required to start doing this on a long term basis warrant a bit
> of
> >>> discussion and thought, to the extent that I would hold fire on pushing
> >> the
> >>> artifact in this release.
> >>
> >> Let's table for this release and discuss further for a long term
> solution.
> >>
> >> Thanks for your response, again, great points/questions all around.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> -W
> >> On Jan 16, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Weston,
> >>>
> >>> I had a think about / quick look at doing this, and cant help but think
> >> it
> >>> has now missed the boat.
> >>>
> >>> In terms of putting up the artifact we have in the 'java release' tar,
> it
> >>> shouldn't be too hard to do on an ad-hoc basis, however doing it
> properly
> >>> on an ongoing basis it isnt so simple and raised several questions and
> >>> things to consider that would stop me from jumping on publishing it
> >> ad-hoc
> >>> for 0.20.
> >>>
> >>> Producing the output as part of the normal build would be a good bit
> more
> >>> involved and rather contrived compared to what is there now for the
> >> clients
> >>> and broker modules, both due to the namaing split (jca vs ra) present
> in
> >>> the jca module, and the fact its the first and only module producing
> >>> multiple artifacts (inluding non-jar artifacts, i.e the rar, which
> >> require
> >>> a very slightly different pom) that happens to have the same name but
> >>> different extension as other artifacts in the module (the jar), and
> also
> >>> has artifacts that dont have sources jars to go with it (the rar).
> >>>
> >>> Some of the questions I had when thinking about it were:
> >>> - Do we publish the jar as well?
> >>> It seems at least some other projects do, possibly as the sources are
> >> only
> >>> for the jar and not the rar.
> >>>
> >>> - Should the rar and the jar really have the same name (excluding the
> >>> extension) if we do?
> >>> It seems at least some projects artifacts dont (e.g the rar is built
> by a
> >>> maven module for the rar that depends on a module for the jar).
> >>>
> >>> - What would we call it?
> >>> qpid-ra isnt necessarily my first pick for a maven artifact name, but
> >> thats
> >>> what it would currently be.
> >>>
> >>> That last question and the earlier mentioned complications in actually
> >>> generating maven artifacts for the jca module lead me on to a related
> >> topic
> >>> I have been meaning to bring up for some time. The naming split within
> >> the
> >>> jca module is quite annoying, and over complicates things in general
> but
> >>> far more so in situations such as this. I think it is time we either
> >>> renamed the module to ra (if we think the historic file name is the
> most
> >>> important thing), or change the output filenames (if we think the
> source
> >>> tree module name is the most important thing). If we were to change the
> >>> filenames in any way (including giving the rar and jar different names)
> >>> then that would be another reason I would hold off publishing it with
> the
> >>> current naming.
> >>>
> >>> Going back to where I started, I think the questions and build process
> >>> change required to start doing this on a long term basis warrant a bit
> of
> >>> discussion and thought, to the extent that I would hold fire on pushing
> >> the
> >>> artifact in this release.
> >>>
> >>> Robbie
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 15 January 2013 17:09, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Robbie,
> >>>>       There is a JIRA
> >>>>
> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4445
> >>>>
> >>>> Basically requesting that the JCA binaries also be uploaded to the
> Maven
> >>>> repository. I am more than willing to look at this, but if you have
> >>>> familiarity with the process it might go much faster.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Weston
> >>>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The maven binaries for the Java clients and broker are staged at:
> >>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheqpid-133
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Robbie
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 10 January 2013 12:48, Justin Ross <jr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi, everyone.  The proposed final 0.20 release candidate, RC4, is
> >>>>>> available here:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jross/qpid-0.20-rc4/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My testing showed everything in good shape, including the proton
> >>>>>> integration.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> RC4 has the following changes versus RC3:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> r1430909 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
> >>>>>> QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may
> produce
> >>>>>> suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
> >>>>>> without good cause
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> r1430904 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
> >>>>>> QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may
> produce
> >>>>>> suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
> >>>>>> without good cause
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> r1430554 | astitcher | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
> >>>>>> QPID-4095: Move the directory iteration into FileSysDir
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> r1430452 | jross | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 1 line
> >>>>>> QPID-4368: Add missing dist file
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> r1430321 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
> >>>>>> QPID-4521: ensure that the routing key is properly passed to the
> >>>>>> alternate Topic exchange by the adapter. Add unit tests for the
> >>>>>> adapter methods.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> r1430320 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
> >>>>>> QPID-4519: return true for VirtualHost MBean isStatusEnabled, dont
> >>>>>> update stats when doing so, and stop using a synchronized method as
> a
> >>>>>> result
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> r1430319 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
> >>>>>> QPID-4512: stop the delete visitor indicating completion upon the
> >>>>>> first matching queue entry, or any for that matter: it needs to
> check
> >>>>>> them all.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> r1424598 | kgiusti | (Thu, 20 Dec 2012) | 1 line
> >>>>>> NO-JIRA: merge compile fix from trunk
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> r1423964 | robbie | (Wed, 19 Dec 2012) | 6 lines
> >>>>>> QPID-4511: move the broker-plugins lib dir under build/scratch to
> >>>>>> prevent it being included in the binary produced by 'ant release'.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The artifacts are signed, and if approved by vote, these bits
> >>>>>> precisely would ship as 0.20 GA.  I'll follow this with a separate
> >>>>>> [VOTE] mail.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks Alex, Keith, Robbie, and Ken for posting your test outcomes
> on
> >>>>>> the list.  It is very much appreciated.  Please try RC4 and prepare
> to
> >>>>>> vote!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Justin
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> 0.20 release page: https://cwiki.apache.org/qpid/020-release.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>

Re: 0.20 release update - proposed final RC4 is available

Posted by "Weston M. Price" <wp...@redhat.com>.

On Jan 22, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm +1 for the changes as per Robbie outlined.
> 
+1 I am in agreement as well. Just had a meeting with our internal folks and the name change will not propose an issue so...full speed ahead!


> -- Rob
> 
> 
> On 22 January 2013 16:39, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jan 22, 2013, at 10:33 AM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> So, I'd like to actually do some work on this over the weekend to ensure
>> we
>>> can publish it in future, which warrants having the previously mentioned
>>> discussion :)
>> Yep.
>>> 
>>> I propose to publish the jar and its sources as one set of maven
>> artifacts,
>>> with the rar published separately as another.
>>> 
>> Makes perfect sense as the RAR is nothing more than it's constituent
>> jars/descriptors just packaged for JEE compliance.
>> 
>>> For the jar, I would retain the jca module structure as it exists now,
>> but
>>> changing its jar artifact to actually be called 'jca' instead of hacked
>> to
>>> become 'ra as it is now', giving qpid-jca-0.XX.jar as the jar output.
>> This
>>> would allow removing all hackery involved with renaming the jar file in
>> the
>>> tree and simplify generation of the maven artifacts for it.
>>> 
>> Agree in principle. We have internal build processes/testing that may have
>> to change as a result so to be a good citizen
>> I would like to have the discussion with my colleagues but I don't see it
>> as being an issue.
>> 
>>> For the rar, I would add continue to have the standard jca module build
>>> produce the rar, adding an additional step to output maven artifacts for
>>> the rar while generating the maven output for the jar. I would propose
>>> either keeping the existing name of qpid-ra-0.XX.rar for compatibility or
>>> change it to something like qpid-jca-ra-0.XX.rar to better denote its
>>> linkaage with the jca module.
>>> 
>> Much like the point above, I agree I just need to run it by those involved
>> in our internal process. Note, if we do change names the documentation will
>> have to change as a result, but that is not that big of a deal either.
>> 
>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>>> 
>> Thanks for taking the time to think about this.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Weston
>>> Robbie
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 16 January 2013 12:32, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Robbie,
>>>>       All great questions.  Wholeheartedly agree on
>>>> 
>>>>> Going back to where I started, I think the questions and build process
>>>>> change required to start doing this on a long term basis warrant a bit
>> of
>>>>> discussion and thought, to the extent that I would hold fire on pushing
>>>> the
>>>>> artifact in this release.
>>>> 
>>>> Let's table for this release and discuss further for a long term
>> solution.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for your response, again, great points/questions all around.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> -W
>>>> On Jan 16, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Weston,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I had a think about / quick look at doing this, and cant help but think
>>>> it
>>>>> has now missed the boat.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In terms of putting up the artifact we have in the 'java release' tar,
>> it
>>>>> shouldn't be too hard to do on an ad-hoc basis, however doing it
>> properly
>>>>> on an ongoing basis it isnt so simple and raised several questions and
>>>>> things to consider that would stop me from jumping on publishing it
>>>> ad-hoc
>>>>> for 0.20.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Producing the output as part of the normal build would be a good bit
>> more
>>>>> involved and rather contrived compared to what is there now for the
>>>> clients
>>>>> and broker modules, both due to the namaing split (jca vs ra) present
>> in
>>>>> the jca module, and the fact its the first and only module producing
>>>>> multiple artifacts (inluding non-jar artifacts, i.e the rar, which
>>>> require
>>>>> a very slightly different pom) that happens to have the same name but
>>>>> different extension as other artifacts in the module (the jar), and
>> also
>>>>> has artifacts that dont have sources jars to go with it (the rar).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Some of the questions I had when thinking about it were:
>>>>> - Do we publish the jar as well?
>>>>> It seems at least some other projects do, possibly as the sources are
>>>> only
>>>>> for the jar and not the rar.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - Should the rar and the jar really have the same name (excluding the
>>>>> extension) if we do?
>>>>> It seems at least some projects artifacts dont (e.g the rar is built
>> by a
>>>>> maven module for the rar that depends on a module for the jar).
>>>>> 
>>>>> - What would we call it?
>>>>> qpid-ra isnt necessarily my first pick for a maven artifact name, but
>>>> thats
>>>>> what it would currently be.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That last question and the earlier mentioned complications in actually
>>>>> generating maven artifacts for the jca module lead me on to a related
>>>> topic
>>>>> I have been meaning to bring up for some time. The naming split within
>>>> the
>>>>> jca module is quite annoying, and over complicates things in general
>> but
>>>>> far more so in situations such as this. I think it is time we either
>>>>> renamed the module to ra (if we think the historic file name is the
>> most
>>>>> important thing), or change the output filenames (if we think the
>> source
>>>>> tree module name is the most important thing). If we were to change the
>>>>> filenames in any way (including giving the rar and jar different names)
>>>>> then that would be another reason I would hold off publishing it with
>> the
>>>>> current naming.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Going back to where I started, I think the questions and build process
>>>>> change required to start doing this on a long term basis warrant a bit
>> of
>>>>> discussion and thought, to the extent that I would hold fire on pushing
>>>> the
>>>>> artifact in this release.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Robbie
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 15 January 2013 17:09, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Robbie,
>>>>>>      There is a JIRA
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4445
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Basically requesting that the JCA binaries also be uploaded to the
>> Maven
>>>>>> repository. I am more than willing to look at this, but if you have
>>>>>> familiarity with the process it might go much faster.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Weston
>>>>>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Robbie Gemmell <
>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The maven binaries for the Java clients and broker are staged at:
>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheqpid-133
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Robbie
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 10 January 2013 12:48, Justin Ross <jr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi, everyone.  The proposed final 0.20 release candidate, RC4, is
>>>>>>>> available here:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jross/qpid-0.20-rc4/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> My testing showed everything in good shape, including the proton
>>>>>>>> integration.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> RC4 has the following changes versus RC3:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> r1430909 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>>>>>>>> QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may
>> produce
>>>>>>>> suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
>>>>>>>> without good cause
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> r1430904 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>>>>>>>> QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may
>> produce
>>>>>>>> suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
>>>>>>>> without good cause
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> r1430554 | astitcher | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>>>>>>>> QPID-4095: Move the directory iteration into FileSysDir
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> r1430452 | jross | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 1 line
>>>>>>>> QPID-4368: Add missing dist file
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> r1430321 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>>>>>>>> QPID-4521: ensure that the routing key is properly passed to the
>>>>>>>> alternate Topic exchange by the adapter. Add unit tests for the
>>>>>>>> adapter methods.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> r1430320 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>>>>>>>> QPID-4519: return true for VirtualHost MBean isStatusEnabled, dont
>>>>>>>> update stats when doing so, and stop using a synchronized method as
>> a
>>>>>>>> result
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> r1430319 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>>>>>>>> QPID-4512: stop the delete visitor indicating completion upon the
>>>>>>>> first matching queue entry, or any for that matter: it needs to
>> check
>>>>>>>> them all.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> r1424598 | kgiusti | (Thu, 20 Dec 2012) | 1 line
>>>>>>>> NO-JIRA: merge compile fix from trunk
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> r1423964 | robbie | (Wed, 19 Dec 2012) | 6 lines
>>>>>>>> QPID-4511: move the broker-plugins lib dir under build/scratch to
>>>>>>>> prevent it being included in the binary produced by 'ant release'.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The artifacts are signed, and if approved by vote, these bits
>>>>>>>> precisely would ship as 0.20 GA.  I'll follow this with a separate
>>>>>>>> [VOTE] mail.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks Alex, Keith, Robbie, and Ken for posting your test outcomes
>> on
>>>>>>>> the list.  It is very much appreciated.  Please try RC4 and prepare
>> to
>>>>>>>> vote!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Justin
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> 0.20 release page: https://cwiki.apache.org/qpid/020-release.html
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>> 
>> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org

Re: 0.20 release update - proposed final RC4 is available

Posted by Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>.

I'm +1 for the changes as per Robbie outlined.

-- Rob


On 22 January 2013 16:39, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:

>
> On Jan 22, 2013, at 10:33 AM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > So, I'd like to actually do some work on this over the weekend to ensure
> we
> > can publish it in future, which warrants having the previously mentioned
> > discussion :)
> Yep.
> >
> > I propose to publish the jar and its sources as one set of maven
> artifacts,
> > with the rar published separately as another.
> >
> Makes perfect sense as the RAR is nothing more than it's constituent
> jars/descriptors just packaged for JEE compliance.
>
> > For the jar, I would retain the jca module structure as it exists now,
> but
> > changing its jar artifact to actually be called 'jca' instead of hacked
> to
> > become 'ra as it is now', giving qpid-jca-0.XX.jar as the jar output.
> This
> > would allow removing all hackery involved with renaming the jar file in
> the
> > tree and simplify generation of the maven artifacts for it.
> >
> Agree in principle. We have internal build processes/testing that may have
> to change as a result so to be a good citizen
> I would like to have the discussion with my colleagues but I don't see it
> as being an issue.
>
> > For the rar, I would add continue to have the standard jca module build
> > produce the rar, adding an additional step to output maven artifacts for
> > the rar while generating the maven output for the jar. I would propose
> > either keeping the existing name of qpid-ra-0.XX.rar for compatibility or
> > change it to something like qpid-jca-ra-0.XX.rar to better denote its
> > linkaage with the jca module.
> >
> Much like the point above, I agree I just need to run it by those involved
> in our internal process. Note, if we do change names the documentation will
> have to change as a result, but that is not that big of a deal either.
>
>
> > Thoughts?
> >
> Thanks for taking the time to think about this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
> > Robbie
> >
> >
> > On 16 January 2013 12:32, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Robbie,
> >>        All great questions.  Wholeheartedly agree on
> >>
> >>> Going back to where I started, I think the questions and build process
> >>> change required to start doing this on a long term basis warrant a bit
> of
> >>> discussion and thought, to the extent that I would hold fire on pushing
> >> the
> >>> artifact in this release.
> >>
> >> Let's table for this release and discuss further for a long term
> solution.
> >>
> >> Thanks for your response, again, great points/questions all around.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> -W
> >> On Jan 16, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Weston,
> >>>
> >>> I had a think about / quick look at doing this, and cant help but think
> >> it
> >>> has now missed the boat.
> >>>
> >>> In terms of putting up the artifact we have in the 'java release' tar,
> it
> >>> shouldn't be too hard to do on an ad-hoc basis, however doing it
> properly
> >>> on an ongoing basis it isnt so simple and raised several questions and
> >>> things to consider that would stop me from jumping on publishing it
> >> ad-hoc
> >>> for 0.20.
> >>>
> >>> Producing the output as part of the normal build would be a good bit
> more
> >>> involved and rather contrived compared to what is there now for the
> >> clients
> >>> and broker modules, both due to the namaing split (jca vs ra) present
> in
> >>> the jca module, and the fact its the first and only module producing
> >>> multiple artifacts (inluding non-jar artifacts, i.e the rar, which
> >> require
> >>> a very slightly different pom) that happens to have the same name but
> >>> different extension as other artifacts in the module (the jar), and
> also
> >>> has artifacts that dont have sources jars to go with it (the rar).
> >>>
> >>> Some of the questions I had when thinking about it were:
> >>> - Do we publish the jar as well?
> >>> It seems at least some other projects do, possibly as the sources are
> >> only
> >>> for the jar and not the rar.
> >>>
> >>> - Should the rar and the jar really have the same name (excluding the
> >>> extension) if we do?
> >>> It seems at least some projects artifacts dont (e.g the rar is built
> by a
> >>> maven module for the rar that depends on a module for the jar).
> >>>
> >>> - What would we call it?
> >>> qpid-ra isnt necessarily my first pick for a maven artifact name, but
> >> thats
> >>> what it would currently be.
> >>>
> >>> That last question and the earlier mentioned complications in actually
> >>> generating maven artifacts for the jca module lead me on to a related
> >> topic
> >>> I have been meaning to bring up for some time. The naming split within
> >> the
> >>> jca module is quite annoying, and over complicates things in general
> but
> >>> far more so in situations such as this. I think it is time we either
> >>> renamed the module to ra (if we think the historic file name is the
> most
> >>> important thing), or change the output filenames (if we think the
> source
> >>> tree module name is the most important thing). If we were to change the
> >>> filenames in any way (including giving the rar and jar different names)
> >>> then that would be another reason I would hold off publishing it with
> the
> >>> current naming.
> >>>
> >>> Going back to where I started, I think the questions and build process
> >>> change required to start doing this on a long term basis warrant a bit
> of
> >>> discussion and thought, to the extent that I would hold fire on pushing
> >> the
> >>> artifact in this release.
> >>>
> >>> Robbie
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 15 January 2013 17:09, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Robbie,
> >>>>       There is a JIRA
> >>>>
> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4445
> >>>>
> >>>> Basically requesting that the JCA binaries also be uploaded to the
> Maven
> >>>> repository. I am more than willing to look at this, but if you have
> >>>> familiarity with the process it might go much faster.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Weston
> >>>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The maven binaries for the Java clients and broker are staged at:
> >>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheqpid-133
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Robbie
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 10 January 2013 12:48, Justin Ross <jr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi, everyone.  The proposed final 0.20 release candidate, RC4, is
> >>>>>> available here:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jross/qpid-0.20-rc4/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My testing showed everything in good shape, including the proton
> >>>>>> integration.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> RC4 has the following changes versus RC3:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> r1430909 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
> >>>>>> QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may
> produce
> >>>>>> suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
> >>>>>> without good cause
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> r1430904 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
> >>>>>> QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may
> produce
> >>>>>> suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
> >>>>>> without good cause
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> r1430554 | astitcher | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
> >>>>>> QPID-4095: Move the directory iteration into FileSysDir
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> r1430452 | jross | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 1 line
> >>>>>> QPID-4368: Add missing dist file
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> r1430321 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
> >>>>>> QPID-4521: ensure that the routing key is properly passed to the
> >>>>>> alternate Topic exchange by the adapter. Add unit tests for the
> >>>>>> adapter methods.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> r1430320 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
> >>>>>> QPID-4519: return true for VirtualHost MBean isStatusEnabled, dont
> >>>>>> update stats when doing so, and stop using a synchronized method as
> a
> >>>>>> result
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> r1430319 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
> >>>>>> QPID-4512: stop the delete visitor indicating completion upon the
> >>>>>> first matching queue entry, or any for that matter: it needs to
> check
> >>>>>> them all.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> r1424598 | kgiusti | (Thu, 20 Dec 2012) | 1 line
> >>>>>> NO-JIRA: merge compile fix from trunk
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> r1423964 | robbie | (Wed, 19 Dec 2012) | 6 lines
> >>>>>> QPID-4511: move the broker-plugins lib dir under build/scratch to
> >>>>>> prevent it being included in the binary produced by 'ant release'.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The artifacts are signed, and if approved by vote, these bits
> >>>>>> precisely would ship as 0.20 GA.  I'll follow this with a separate
> >>>>>> [VOTE] mail.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks Alex, Keith, Robbie, and Ken for posting your test outcomes
> on
> >>>>>> the list.  It is very much appreciated.  Please try RC4 and prepare
> to
> >>>>>> vote!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Justin
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> 0.20 release page: https://cwiki.apache.org/qpid/020-release.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>

Re: 0.20 release update - proposed final RC4 is available

Posted by "Weston M. Price" <wp...@redhat.com>.

On Jan 22, 2013, at 10:33 AM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So, I'd like to actually do some work on this over the weekend to ensure we
> can publish it in future, which warrants having the previously mentioned
> discussion :)
Yep.
> 
> I propose to publish the jar and its sources as one set of maven artifacts,
> with the rar published separately as another.
> 
Makes perfect sense as the RAR is nothing more than it's constituent jars/descriptors just packaged for JEE compliance.

> For the jar, I would retain the jca module structure as it exists now, but
> changing its jar artifact to actually be called 'jca' instead of hacked to
> become 'ra as it is now', giving qpid-jca-0.XX.jar as the jar output. This
> would allow removing all hackery involved with renaming the jar file in the
> tree and simplify generation of the maven artifacts for it.
> 
Agree in principle. We have internal build processes/testing that may have to change as a result so to be a good citizen
I would like to have the discussion with my colleagues but I don't see it as being an issue. 

> For the rar, I would add continue to have the standard jca module build
> produce the rar, adding an additional step to output maven artifacts for
> the rar while generating the maven output for the jar. I would propose
> either keeping the existing name of qpid-ra-0.XX.rar for compatibility or
> change it to something like qpid-jca-ra-0.XX.rar to better denote its
> linkaage with the jca module.
> 
Much like the point above, I agree I just need to run it by those involved in our internal process. Note, if we do change names the documentation will have to change as a result, but that is not that big of a deal either. 


> Thoughts?
> 
Thanks for taking the time to think about this. 

Regards,

Weston
> Robbie
> 
> 
> On 16 January 2013 12:32, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Robbie,
>>        All great questions.  Wholeheartedly agree on
>> 
>>> Going back to where I started, I think the questions and build process
>>> change required to start doing this on a long term basis warrant a bit of
>>> discussion and thought, to the extent that I would hold fire on pushing
>> the
>>> artifact in this release.
>> 
>> Let's table for this release and discuss further for a long term solution.
>> 
>> Thanks for your response, again, great points/questions all around.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> -W
>> On Jan 16, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Weston,
>>> 
>>> I had a think about / quick look at doing this, and cant help but think
>> it
>>> has now missed the boat.
>>> 
>>> In terms of putting up the artifact we have in the 'java release' tar, it
>>> shouldn't be too hard to do on an ad-hoc basis, however doing it properly
>>> on an ongoing basis it isnt so simple and raised several questions and
>>> things to consider that would stop me from jumping on publishing it
>> ad-hoc
>>> for 0.20.
>>> 
>>> Producing the output as part of the normal build would be a good bit more
>>> involved and rather contrived compared to what is there now for the
>> clients
>>> and broker modules, both due to the namaing split (jca vs ra) present in
>>> the jca module, and the fact its the first and only module producing
>>> multiple artifacts (inluding non-jar artifacts, i.e the rar, which
>> require
>>> a very slightly different pom) that happens to have the same name but
>>> different extension as other artifacts in the module (the jar), and also
>>> has artifacts that dont have sources jars to go with it (the rar).
>>> 
>>> Some of the questions I had when thinking about it were:
>>> - Do we publish the jar as well?
>>> It seems at least some other projects do, possibly as the sources are
>> only
>>> for the jar and not the rar.
>>> 
>>> - Should the rar and the jar really have the same name (excluding the
>>> extension) if we do?
>>> It seems at least some projects artifacts dont (e.g the rar is built by a
>>> maven module for the rar that depends on a module for the jar).
>>> 
>>> - What would we call it?
>>> qpid-ra isnt necessarily my first pick for a maven artifact name, but
>> thats
>>> what it would currently be.
>>> 
>>> That last question and the earlier mentioned complications in actually
>>> generating maven artifacts for the jca module lead me on to a related
>> topic
>>> I have been meaning to bring up for some time. The naming split within
>> the
>>> jca module is quite annoying, and over complicates things in general but
>>> far more so in situations such as this. I think it is time we either
>>> renamed the module to ra (if we think the historic file name is the most
>>> important thing), or change the output filenames (if we think the source
>>> tree module name is the most important thing). If we were to change the
>>> filenames in any way (including giving the rar and jar different names)
>>> then that would be another reason I would hold off publishing it with the
>>> current naming.
>>> 
>>> Going back to where I started, I think the questions and build process
>>> change required to start doing this on a long term basis warrant a bit of
>>> discussion and thought, to the extent that I would hold fire on pushing
>> the
>>> artifact in this release.
>>> 
>>> Robbie
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 15 January 2013 17:09, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Robbie,
>>>>       There is a JIRA
>>>> 
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4445
>>>> 
>>>> Basically requesting that the JCA binaries also be uploaded to the Maven
>>>> repository. I am more than willing to look at this, but if you have
>>>> familiarity with the process it might go much faster.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Weston
>>>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The maven binaries for the Java clients and broker are staged at:
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheqpid-133
>>>>> 
>>>>> Robbie
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 10 January 2013 12:48, Justin Ross <jr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi, everyone.  The proposed final 0.20 release candidate, RC4, is
>>>>>> available here:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jross/qpid-0.20-rc4/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My testing showed everything in good shape, including the proton
>>>>>> integration.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> RC4 has the following changes versus RC3:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> r1430909 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>>>>>> QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may produce
>>>>>> suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
>>>>>> without good cause
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> r1430904 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>>>>>> QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may produce
>>>>>> suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
>>>>>> without good cause
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> r1430554 | astitcher | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>>>>>> QPID-4095: Move the directory iteration into FileSysDir
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> r1430452 | jross | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 1 line
>>>>>> QPID-4368: Add missing dist file
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> r1430321 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>>>>>> QPID-4521: ensure that the routing key is properly passed to the
>>>>>> alternate Topic exchange by the adapter. Add unit tests for the
>>>>>> adapter methods.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> r1430320 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>>>>>> QPID-4519: return true for VirtualHost MBean isStatusEnabled, dont
>>>>>> update stats when doing so, and stop using a synchronized method as a
>>>>>> result
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> r1430319 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>>>>>> QPID-4512: stop the delete visitor indicating completion upon the
>>>>>> first matching queue entry, or any for that matter: it needs to check
>>>>>> them all.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> r1424598 | kgiusti | (Thu, 20 Dec 2012) | 1 line
>>>>>> NO-JIRA: merge compile fix from trunk
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> r1423964 | robbie | (Wed, 19 Dec 2012) | 6 lines
>>>>>> QPID-4511: move the broker-plugins lib dir under build/scratch to
>>>>>> prevent it being included in the binary produced by 'ant release'.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The artifacts are signed, and if approved by vote, these bits
>>>>>> precisely would ship as 0.20 GA.  I'll follow this with a separate
>>>>>> [VOTE] mail.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks Alex, Keith, Robbie, and Ken for posting your test outcomes on
>>>>>> the list.  It is very much appreciated.  Please try RC4 and prepare to
>>>>>> vote!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Justin
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> 0.20 release page: https://cwiki.apache.org/qpid/020-release.html
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>> 
>> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org

Re: 0.20 release update - proposed final RC4 is available

Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.

So, I'd like to actually do some work on this over the weekend to ensure we
can publish it in future, which warrants having the previously mentioned
discussion :)

I propose to publish the jar and its sources as one set of maven artifacts,
with the rar published separately as another.

For the jar, I would retain the jca module structure as it exists now, but
changing its jar artifact to actually be called 'jca' instead of hacked to
become 'ra as it is now', giving qpid-jca-0.XX.jar as the jar output. This
would allow removing all hackery involved with renaming the jar file in the
tree and simplify generation of the maven artifacts for it.

For the rar, I would add continue to have the standard jca module build
produce the rar, adding an additional step to output maven artifacts for
the rar while generating the maven output for the jar. I would propose
either keeping the existing name of qpid-ra-0.XX.rar for compatibility or
change it to something like qpid-jca-ra-0.XX.rar to better denote its
linkaage with the jca module.

Thoughts?

Robbie


On 16 January 2013 12:32, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi Robbie,
>         All great questions.  Wholeheartedly agree on
>
> > Going back to where I started, I think the questions and build process
> > change required to start doing this on a long term basis warrant a bit of
> > discussion and thought, to the extent that I would hold fire on pushing
> the
> > artifact in this release.
>
> Let's table for this release and discuss further for a long term solution.
>
> Thanks for your response, again, great points/questions all around.
>
> Regards,
>
> -W
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Weston,
> >
> > I had a think about / quick look at doing this, and cant help but think
> it
> > has now missed the boat.
> >
> > In terms of putting up the artifact we have in the 'java release' tar, it
> > shouldn't be too hard to do on an ad-hoc basis, however doing it properly
> > on an ongoing basis it isnt so simple and raised several questions and
> > things to consider that would stop me from jumping on publishing it
> ad-hoc
> > for 0.20.
> >
> > Producing the output as part of the normal build would be a good bit more
> > involved and rather contrived compared to what is there now for the
> clients
> > and broker modules, both due to the namaing split (jca vs ra) present in
> > the jca module, and the fact its the first and only module producing
> > multiple artifacts (inluding non-jar artifacts, i.e the rar, which
> require
> > a very slightly different pom) that happens to have the same name but
> > different extension as other artifacts in the module (the jar), and also
> > has artifacts that dont have sources jars to go with it (the rar).
> >
> > Some of the questions I had when thinking about it were:
> > - Do we publish the jar as well?
> > It seems at least some other projects do, possibly as the sources are
> only
> > for the jar and not the rar.
> >
> > - Should the rar and the jar really have the same name (excluding the
> > extension) if we do?
> > It seems at least some projects artifacts dont (e.g the rar is built by a
> > maven module for the rar that depends on a module for the jar).
> >
> > - What would we call it?
> > qpid-ra isnt necessarily my first pick for a maven artifact name, but
> thats
> > what it would currently be.
> >
> > That last question and the earlier mentioned complications in actually
> > generating maven artifacts for the jca module lead me on to a related
> topic
> > I have been meaning to bring up for some time. The naming split within
> the
> > jca module is quite annoying, and over complicates things in general but
> > far more so in situations such as this. I think it is time we either
> > renamed the module to ra (if we think the historic file name is the most
> > important thing), or change the output filenames (if we think the source
> > tree module name is the most important thing). If we were to change the
> > filenames in any way (including giving the rar and jar different names)
> > then that would be another reason I would hold off publishing it with the
> > current naming.
> >
> > Going back to where I started, I think the questions and build process
> > change required to start doing this on a long term basis warrant a bit of
> > discussion and thought, to the extent that I would hold fire on pushing
> the
> > artifact in this release.
> >
> > Robbie
> >
> >
> > On 15 January 2013 17:09, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Robbie,
> >>        There is a JIRA
> >>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4445
> >>
> >> Basically requesting that the JCA binaries also be uploaded to the Maven
> >> repository. I am more than willing to look at this, but if you have
> >> familiarity with the process it might go much faster.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Weston
> >> On Jan 15, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The maven binaries for the Java clients and broker are staged at:
> >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheqpid-133
> >>>
> >>> Robbie
> >>>
> >>> On 10 January 2013 12:48, Justin Ross <jr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi, everyone.  The proposed final 0.20 release candidate, RC4, is
> >>>> available here:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~jross/qpid-0.20-rc4/
> >>>>
> >>>> My testing showed everything in good shape, including the proton
> >>>> integration.
> >>>>
> >>>> RC4 has the following changes versus RC3:
> >>>>
> >>>> r1430909 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
> >>>> QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may produce
> >>>> suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
> >>>> without good cause
> >>>>
> >>>> r1430904 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
> >>>> QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may produce
> >>>> suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
> >>>> without good cause
> >>>>
> >>>> r1430554 | astitcher | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
> >>>> QPID-4095: Move the directory iteration into FileSysDir
> >>>>
> >>>> r1430452 | jross | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 1 line
> >>>> QPID-4368: Add missing dist file
> >>>>
> >>>> r1430321 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
> >>>> QPID-4521: ensure that the routing key is properly passed to the
> >>>> alternate Topic exchange by the adapter. Add unit tests for the
> >>>> adapter methods.
> >>>>
> >>>> r1430320 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
> >>>> QPID-4519: return true for VirtualHost MBean isStatusEnabled, dont
> >>>> update stats when doing so, and stop using a synchronized method as a
> >>>> result
> >>>>
> >>>> r1430319 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
> >>>> QPID-4512: stop the delete visitor indicating completion upon the
> >>>> first matching queue entry, or any for that matter: it needs to check
> >>>> them all.
> >>>>
> >>>> r1424598 | kgiusti | (Thu, 20 Dec 2012) | 1 line
> >>>> NO-JIRA: merge compile fix from trunk
> >>>>
> >>>> r1423964 | robbie | (Wed, 19 Dec 2012) | 6 lines
> >>>> QPID-4511: move the broker-plugins lib dir under build/scratch to
> >>>> prevent it being included in the binary produced by 'ant release'.
> >>>>
> >>>> The artifacts are signed, and if approved by vote, these bits
> >>>> precisely would ship as 0.20 GA.  I'll follow this with a separate
> >>>> [VOTE] mail.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks Alex, Keith, Robbie, and Ken for posting your test outcomes on
> >>>> the list.  It is very much appreciated.  Please try RC4 and prepare to
> >>>> vote!
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Justin
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> 0.20 release page: https://cwiki.apache.org/qpid/020-release.html
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>

Re: 0.20 release update - proposed final RC4 is available

Posted by "Weston M. Price" <wp...@redhat.com>.

Hi Robbie,
	All great questions.  Wholeheartedly agree on

> Going back to where I started, I think the questions and build process
> change required to start doing this on a long term basis warrant a bit of
> discussion and thought, to the extent that I would hold fire on pushing the
> artifact in this release.

Let's table for this release and discuss further for a long term solution. 

Thanks for your response, again, great points/questions all around. 

Regards,

-W
On Jan 16, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Weston,
> 
> I had a think about / quick look at doing this, and cant help but think it
> has now missed the boat.
> 
> In terms of putting up the artifact we have in the 'java release' tar, it
> shouldn't be too hard to do on an ad-hoc basis, however doing it properly
> on an ongoing basis it isnt so simple and raised several questions and
> things to consider that would stop me from jumping on publishing it ad-hoc
> for 0.20.
> 
> Producing the output as part of the normal build would be a good bit more
> involved and rather contrived compared to what is there now for the clients
> and broker modules, both due to the namaing split (jca vs ra) present in
> the jca module, and the fact its the first and only module producing
> multiple artifacts (inluding non-jar artifacts, i.e the rar, which require
> a very slightly different pom) that happens to have the same name but
> different extension as other artifacts in the module (the jar), and also
> has artifacts that dont have sources jars to go with it (the rar).
> 
> Some of the questions I had when thinking about it were:
> - Do we publish the jar as well?
> It seems at least some other projects do, possibly as the sources are only
> for the jar and not the rar.
> 
> - Should the rar and the jar really have the same name (excluding the
> extension) if we do?
> It seems at least some projects artifacts dont (e.g the rar is built by a
> maven module for the rar that depends on a module for the jar).
> 
> - What would we call it?
> qpid-ra isnt necessarily my first pick for a maven artifact name, but thats
> what it would currently be.
> 
> That last question and the earlier mentioned complications in actually
> generating maven artifacts for the jca module lead me on to a related topic
> I have been meaning to bring up for some time. The naming split within the
> jca module is quite annoying, and over complicates things in general but
> far more so in situations such as this. I think it is time we either
> renamed the module to ra (if we think the historic file name is the most
> important thing), or change the output filenames (if we think the source
> tree module name is the most important thing). If we were to change the
> filenames in any way (including giving the rar and jar different names)
> then that would be another reason I would hold off publishing it with the
> current naming.
> 
> Going back to where I started, I think the questions and build process
> change required to start doing this on a long term basis warrant a bit of
> discussion and thought, to the extent that I would hold fire on pushing the
> artifact in this release.
> 
> Robbie
> 
> 
> On 15 January 2013 17:09, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Robbie,
>>        There is a JIRA
>> 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4445
>> 
>> Basically requesting that the JCA binaries also be uploaded to the Maven
>> repository. I am more than willing to look at this, but if you have
>> familiarity with the process it might go much faster.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Weston
>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> The maven binaries for the Java clients and broker are staged at:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheqpid-133
>>> 
>>> Robbie
>>> 
>>> On 10 January 2013 12:48, Justin Ross <jr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi, everyone.  The proposed final 0.20 release candidate, RC4, is
>>>> available here:
>>>> 
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jross/qpid-0.20-rc4/
>>>> 
>>>> My testing showed everything in good shape, including the proton
>>>> integration.
>>>> 
>>>> RC4 has the following changes versus RC3:
>>>> 
>>>> r1430909 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>>>> QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may produce
>>>> suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
>>>> without good cause
>>>> 
>>>> r1430904 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>>>> QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may produce
>>>> suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
>>>> without good cause
>>>> 
>>>> r1430554 | astitcher | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>>>> QPID-4095: Move the directory iteration into FileSysDir
>>>> 
>>>> r1430452 | jross | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 1 line
>>>> QPID-4368: Add missing dist file
>>>> 
>>>> r1430321 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>>>> QPID-4521: ensure that the routing key is properly passed to the
>>>> alternate Topic exchange by the adapter. Add unit tests for the
>>>> adapter methods.
>>>> 
>>>> r1430320 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>>>> QPID-4519: return true for VirtualHost MBean isStatusEnabled, dont
>>>> update stats when doing so, and stop using a synchronized method as a
>>>> result
>>>> 
>>>> r1430319 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>>>> QPID-4512: stop the delete visitor indicating completion upon the
>>>> first matching queue entry, or any for that matter: it needs to check
>>>> them all.
>>>> 
>>>> r1424598 | kgiusti | (Thu, 20 Dec 2012) | 1 line
>>>> NO-JIRA: merge compile fix from trunk
>>>> 
>>>> r1423964 | robbie | (Wed, 19 Dec 2012) | 6 lines
>>>> QPID-4511: move the broker-plugins lib dir under build/scratch to
>>>> prevent it being included in the binary produced by 'ant release'.
>>>> 
>>>> The artifacts are signed, and if approved by vote, these bits
>>>> precisely would ship as 0.20 GA.  I'll follow this with a separate
>>>> [VOTE] mail.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks Alex, Keith, Robbie, and Ken for posting your test outcomes on
>>>> the list.  It is very much appreciated.  Please try RC4 and prepare to
>>>> vote!
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Justin
>>>> 
>>>> ---
>>>> 0.20 release page: https://cwiki.apache.org/qpid/020-release.html
>>>> 
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>> 
>> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org

Re: 0.20 release update - proposed final RC4 is available

Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.

Hi Weston,

I had a think about / quick look at doing this, and cant help but think it
has now missed the boat.

In terms of putting up the artifact we have in the 'java release' tar, it
shouldn't be too hard to do on an ad-hoc basis, however doing it properly
on an ongoing basis it isnt so simple and raised several questions and
things to consider that would stop me from jumping on publishing it ad-hoc
for 0.20.

Producing the output as part of the normal build would be a good bit more
involved and rather contrived compared to what is there now for the clients
and broker modules, both due to the namaing split (jca vs ra) present in
the jca module, and the fact its the first and only module producing
multiple artifacts (inluding non-jar artifacts, i.e the rar, which require
a very slightly different pom) that happens to have the same name but
different extension as other artifacts in the module (the jar), and also
has artifacts that dont have sources jars to go with it (the rar).

Some of the questions I had when thinking about it were:
- Do we publish the jar as well?
It seems at least some other projects do, possibly as the sources are only
for the jar and not the rar.

- Should the rar and the jar really have the same name (excluding the
extension) if we do?
It seems at least some projects artifacts dont (e.g the rar is built by a
maven module for the rar that depends on a module for the jar).

- What would we call it?
qpid-ra isnt necessarily my first pick for a maven artifact name, but thats
what it would currently be.

That last question and the earlier mentioned complications in actually
generating maven artifacts for the jca module lead me on to a related topic
I have been meaning to bring up for some time. The naming split within the
jca module is quite annoying, and over complicates things in general but
far more so in situations such as this. I think it is time we either
renamed the module to ra (if we think the historic file name is the most
important thing), or change the output filenames (if we think the source
tree module name is the most important thing). If we were to change the
filenames in any way (including giving the rar and jar different names)
then that would be another reason I would hold off publishing it with the
current naming.

Going back to where I started, I think the questions and build process
change required to start doing this on a long term basis warrant a bit of
discussion and thought, to the extent that I would hold fire on pushing the
artifact in this release.

Robbie

On 15 January 2013 17:09, Weston M. Price <wp...@redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi Robbie,
>         There is a JIRA
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4445
>
> Basically requesting that the JCA binaries also be uploaded to the Maven
> repository. I am more than willing to look at this, but if you have
> familiarity with the process it might go much faster.
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
> On Jan 15, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The maven binaries for the Java clients and broker are staged at:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheqpid-133
> >
> > Robbie
> >
> > On 10 January 2013 12:48, Justin Ross <jr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi, everyone.  The proposed final 0.20 release candidate, RC4, is
> >> available here:
> >>
> >>  http://people.apache.org/~jross/qpid-0.20-rc4/
> >>
> >> My testing showed everything in good shape, including the proton
> >> integration.
> >>
> >> RC4 has the following changes versus RC3:
> >>
> >>  r1430909 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
> >>  QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may produce
> >>  suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
> >>  without good cause
> >>
> >>  r1430904 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
> >>  QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may produce
> >>  suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
> >>  without good cause
> >>
> >>  r1430554 | astitcher | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
> >>  QPID-4095: Move the directory iteration into FileSysDir
> >>
> >>  r1430452 | jross | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 1 line
> >>  QPID-4368: Add missing dist file
> >>
> >>  r1430321 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
> >>  QPID-4521: ensure that the routing key is properly passed to the
> >>  alternate Topic exchange by the adapter. Add unit tests for the
> >>  adapter methods.
> >>
> >>  r1430320 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
> >>  QPID-4519: return true for VirtualHost MBean isStatusEnabled, dont
> >>  update stats when doing so, and stop using a synchronized method as a
> >>  result
> >>
> >>  r1430319 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
> >>  QPID-4512: stop the delete visitor indicating completion upon the
> >>  first matching queue entry, or any for that matter: it needs to check
> >>  them all.
> >>
> >>  r1424598 | kgiusti | (Thu, 20 Dec 2012) | 1 line
> >>  NO-JIRA: merge compile fix from trunk
> >>
> >>  r1423964 | robbie | (Wed, 19 Dec 2012) | 6 lines
> >>  QPID-4511: move the broker-plugins lib dir under build/scratch to
> >>  prevent it being included in the binary produced by 'ant release'.
> >>
> >> The artifacts are signed, and if approved by vote, these bits
> >> precisely would ship as 0.20 GA.  I'll follow this with a separate
> >> [VOTE] mail.
> >>
> >> Thanks Alex, Keith, Robbie, and Ken for posting your test outcomes on
> >> the list.  It is very much appreciated.  Please try RC4 and prepare to
> >> vote!
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Justin
> >>
> >> ---
> >> 0.20 release page: https://cwiki.apache.org/qpid/020-release.html
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>

Re: 0.20 release update - proposed final RC4 is available

Posted by "Weston M. Price" <wp...@redhat.com>.

Hi Robbie,
	There is a JIRA

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4445

Basically requesting that the JCA binaries also be uploaded to the Maven repository. I am more than willing to look at this, but if you have familiarity with the process it might go much faster. 

Regards,

Weston
On Jan 15, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The maven binaries for the Java clients and broker are staged at:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheqpid-133
> 
> Robbie
> 
> On 10 January 2013 12:48, Justin Ross <jr...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi, everyone.  The proposed final 0.20 release candidate, RC4, is
>> available here:
>> 
>>  http://people.apache.org/~jross/qpid-0.20-rc4/
>> 
>> My testing showed everything in good shape, including the proton
>> integration.
>> 
>> RC4 has the following changes versus RC3:
>> 
>>  r1430909 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>>  QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may produce
>>  suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
>>  without good cause
>> 
>>  r1430904 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>>  QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may produce
>>  suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
>>  without good cause
>> 
>>  r1430554 | astitcher | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>>  QPID-4095: Move the directory iteration into FileSysDir
>> 
>>  r1430452 | jross | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 1 line
>>  QPID-4368: Add missing dist file
>> 
>>  r1430321 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>>  QPID-4521: ensure that the routing key is properly passed to the
>>  alternate Topic exchange by the adapter. Add unit tests for the
>>  adapter methods.
>> 
>>  r1430320 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>>  QPID-4519: return true for VirtualHost MBean isStatusEnabled, dont
>>  update stats when doing so, and stop using a synchronized method as a
>>  result
>> 
>>  r1430319 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>>  QPID-4512: stop the delete visitor indicating completion upon the
>>  first matching queue entry, or any for that matter: it needs to check
>>  them all.
>> 
>>  r1424598 | kgiusti | (Thu, 20 Dec 2012) | 1 line
>>  NO-JIRA: merge compile fix from trunk
>> 
>>  r1423964 | robbie | (Wed, 19 Dec 2012) | 6 lines
>>  QPID-4511: move the broker-plugins lib dir under build/scratch to
>>  prevent it being included in the binary produced by 'ant release'.
>> 
>> The artifacts are signed, and if approved by vote, these bits
>> precisely would ship as 0.20 GA.  I'll follow this with a separate
>> [VOTE] mail.
>> 
>> Thanks Alex, Keith, Robbie, and Ken for posting your test outcomes on
>> the list.  It is very much appreciated.  Please try RC4 and prepare to
>> vote!
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>> 
>> ---
>> 0.20 release page: https://cwiki.apache.org/qpid/020-release.html
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>> 
>> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org

Re: 0.20 release update - proposed final RC4 is available

Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.

The maven binaries for the Java clients and broker are staged at:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheqpid-133

Robbie

On 10 January 2013 12:48, Justin Ross <jr...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi, everyone.  The proposed final 0.20 release candidate, RC4, is
> available here:
>
>   http://people.apache.org/~jross/qpid-0.20-rc4/
>
> My testing showed everything in good shape, including the proton
> integration.
>
> RC4 has the following changes versus RC3:
>
>   r1430909 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>   QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may produce
>   suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
>   without good cause
>
>   r1430904 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>   QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may produce
>   suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
>   without good cause
>
>   r1430554 | astitcher | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>   QPID-4095: Move the directory iteration into FileSysDir
>
>   r1430452 | jross | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 1 line
>   QPID-4368: Add missing dist file
>
>   r1430321 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>   QPID-4521: ensure that the routing key is properly passed to the
>   alternate Topic exchange by the adapter. Add unit tests for the
>   adapter methods.
>
>   r1430320 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>   QPID-4519: return true for VirtualHost MBean isStatusEnabled, dont
>   update stats when doing so, and stop using a synchronized method as a
>   result
>
>   r1430319 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>   QPID-4512: stop the delete visitor indicating completion upon the
>   first matching queue entry, or any for that matter: it needs to check
>   them all.
>
>   r1424598 | kgiusti | (Thu, 20 Dec 2012) | 1 line
>   NO-JIRA: merge compile fix from trunk
>
>   r1423964 | robbie | (Wed, 19 Dec 2012) | 6 lines
>   QPID-4511: move the broker-plugins lib dir under build/scratch to
>   prevent it being included in the binary produced by 'ant release'.
>
> The artifacts are signed, and if approved by vote, these bits
> precisely would ship as 0.20 GA.  I'll follow this with a separate
> [VOTE] mail.
>
> Thanks Alex, Keith, Robbie, and Ken for posting your test outcomes on
> the list.  It is very much appreciated.  Please try RC4 and prepare to
> vote!
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> ---
> 0.20 release page: https://cwiki.apache.org/qpid/020-release.html
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>

Re: 0.20rc4 debian 6 install problem [was: Re: 0.20 release update - proposed final RC4 is available]

Posted by Justin Ross <jr...@redhat.com>.

Thanks, Ken.  I agree this is not a showstopper.  We should instead 
address this one on trunk for the next release, IMO.

Justin

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Ken Giusti wrote:

> Turns out "make install" does work for debian 6 when using the "pre-bootstrapped" files available in the qpid-cpp-0.20.tar.gz download.
>
> The problem seems to be a bug in the debian 6 libtool/autotools stuff, and will only be hit when using the "un-pre-bootstrapped" qpid-0.20.tar.gz download.
>
> I don't feel this is a showstopper, what do you think, Justin?
>
> -K
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 11:44 -0500, Ken Giusti wrote:
>>>> Hi Justin,
>>>>
>>>> I have hit a problem testing RC4 on my debian-6 i686 VM:
>>>>
>>>> I pulled down qpid-0.20.tar, did "./bootstrap && ./configure &&
>>>> make && make test"  - all fine, but when I tried to 'make
>>>> install'
>>>> as root:
>>>>
>>>> libtool: relink: g++ -shared -nostdlib
>>>> /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/crti.o
>>>> /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/crtbeginS.o
>>>>  qpid/ha/.libs/Backup.o qpid/ha/.libs/BrokerInfo.o
>>>> qpid/ha/.libs/BrokerReplicator.o
>>>> qpid/ha/.libs/ConnectionObserver.o qpid/ha/.libs/HaBroker.o
>>>> qpid/ha/.libs/HaPlugin.o qpid/ha/.libs/Membership.o
>>>> qpid/ha/.libs/Primary.o qpid/ha/.libs/QueueGuard.o
>>>> qpid/ha/.libs/QueueReplicator.o
>>>> qpid/ha/.libs/ReplicatingSubscription.o
>>>> qpid/ha/.libs/ReplicationTest.o qpid/ha/.libs/StatusCheck.o
>>>> qpid/ha/.libs/RemoteBackup.o qpid/ha/.libs/types.o
>>>>   -L/usr/local/lib -lqpidbroker -lqpidmessaging
>>>> -L/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5
>>>> -L/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib -L/lib/../lib
>>>> -L/usr/lib/../lib -L/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../..
>>>> -L/usr/lib/i486-linux-gnu -lstdc++ -lm -lc -lgcc_s
>>>> /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/crtendS.o
>>>> /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/crtn.o
>>>>    -Wl,-soname -Wl,ha.so -o .libs/ha.so
>>>> /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lqpidbroker
>>>> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
>>>> libtool: install: error: relink `ha.la' with the above command
>>>> before installing it
>>>> make[3]: *** [install-dmoduleexecLTLIBRARIES] Error 1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This appears to be related to the automake configuration: I then
>>>> tried to rebuild using cmake, I was able to 'make install' from
>>>> the cmake build tree without a problem.
>>>
>>> It looks like a missing dependency: qpidbroker needs to be
>>> installed
>>> first for the install relink to find it.
>>
>> Busted dependency's got my vote: libqpidbroker never ends up
>> installed in /usr/local/lib.  I'd imagine the LD path wouldn't
>> matter given the command explicitly states -L/usr/local/lib ...
>>
>>>
>>> Or perhaps the default install location /usr/local/lib isn't in the
>>> ld
>>> path for some reason.
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org

0.20rc4 debian 6 install problem [was: Re: 0.20 release update - proposed final RC4 is available]

Posted by Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com>.

Turns out "make install" does work for debian 6 when using the "pre-bootstrapped" files available in the qpid-cpp-0.20.tar.gz download.

The problem seems to be a bug in the debian 6 libtool/autotools stuff, and will only be hit when using the "un-pre-bootstrapped" qpid-0.20.tar.gz download.

I don't feel this is a showstopper, what do you think, Justin?

-K

----- Original Message -----
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 11:44 -0500, Ken Giusti wrote:
> > > Hi Justin,
> > > 
> > > I have hit a problem testing RC4 on my debian-6 i686 VM:
> > > 
> > > I pulled down qpid-0.20.tar, did "./bootstrap && ./configure &&
> > > make && make test"  - all fine, but when I tried to 'make
> > > install'
> > > as root:
> > > 
> > > libtool: relink: g++ -shared -nostdlib
> > > /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/crti.o
> > > /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/crtbeginS.o
> > >  qpid/ha/.libs/Backup.o qpid/ha/.libs/BrokerInfo.o
> > > qpid/ha/.libs/BrokerReplicator.o
> > > qpid/ha/.libs/ConnectionObserver.o qpid/ha/.libs/HaBroker.o
> > > qpid/ha/.libs/HaPlugin.o qpid/ha/.libs/Membership.o
> > > qpid/ha/.libs/Primary.o qpid/ha/.libs/QueueGuard.o
> > > qpid/ha/.libs/QueueReplicator.o
> > > qpid/ha/.libs/ReplicatingSubscription.o
> > > qpid/ha/.libs/ReplicationTest.o qpid/ha/.libs/StatusCheck.o
> > > qpid/ha/.libs/RemoteBackup.o qpid/ha/.libs/types.o
> > >   -L/usr/local/lib -lqpidbroker -lqpidmessaging
> > > -L/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5
> > > -L/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib -L/lib/../lib
> > > -L/usr/lib/../lib -L/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../..
> > > -L/usr/lib/i486-linux-gnu -lstdc++ -lm -lc -lgcc_s
> > > /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/crtendS.o
> > > /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/crtn.o
> > >    -Wl,-soname -Wl,ha.so -o .libs/ha.so
> > > /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lqpidbroker
> > > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> > > libtool: install: error: relink `ha.la' with the above command
> > > before installing it
> > > make[3]: *** [install-dmoduleexecLTLIBRARIES] Error 1
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This appears to be related to the automake configuration: I then
> > > tried to rebuild using cmake, I was able to 'make install' from
> > > the cmake build tree without a problem.
> > 
> > It looks like a missing dependency: qpidbroker needs to be
> > installed
> > first for the install relink to find it.
> 
> Busted dependency's got my vote: libqpidbroker never ends up
> installed in /usr/local/lib.  I'd imagine the LD path wouldn't
> matter given the command explicitly states -L/usr/local/lib ...
> 
> > 
> > Or perhaps the default install location /usr/local/lib isn't in the
> > ld
> > path for some reason.
> > 
> > Andrew
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
> > 
> > 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org

Re: 0.20 release update - proposed final RC4 is available

Posted by Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com>.

----- Original Message -----
> On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 11:44 -0500, Ken Giusti wrote:
> > Hi Justin,
> > 
> > I have hit a problem testing RC4 on my debian-6 i686 VM:
> > 
> > I pulled down qpid-0.20.tar, did "./bootstrap && ./configure &&
> > make && make test"  - all fine, but when I tried to 'make install'
> > as root:
> > 
> > libtool: relink: g++ -shared -nostdlib
> > /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/crti.o
> > /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/crtbeginS.o
> >  qpid/ha/.libs/Backup.o qpid/ha/.libs/BrokerInfo.o
> > qpid/ha/.libs/BrokerReplicator.o
> > qpid/ha/.libs/ConnectionObserver.o qpid/ha/.libs/HaBroker.o
> > qpid/ha/.libs/HaPlugin.o qpid/ha/.libs/Membership.o
> > qpid/ha/.libs/Primary.o qpid/ha/.libs/QueueGuard.o
> > qpid/ha/.libs/QueueReplicator.o
> > qpid/ha/.libs/ReplicatingSubscription.o
> > qpid/ha/.libs/ReplicationTest.o qpid/ha/.libs/StatusCheck.o
> > qpid/ha/.libs/RemoteBackup.o qpid/ha/.libs/types.o
> >   -L/usr/local/lib -lqpidbroker -lqpidmessaging
> > -L/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5
> > -L/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib -L/lib/../lib
> > -L/usr/lib/../lib -L/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../..
> > -L/usr/lib/i486-linux-gnu -lstdc++ -lm -lc -lgcc_s
> > /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/crtendS.o
> > /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/crtn.o
> >    -Wl,-soname -Wl,ha.so -o .libs/ha.so
> > /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lqpidbroker
> > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> > libtool: install: error: relink `ha.la' with the above command
> > before installing it
> > make[3]: *** [install-dmoduleexecLTLIBRARIES] Error 1
> > 
> > 
> > This appears to be related to the automake configuration: I then
> > tried to rebuild using cmake, I was able to 'make install' from
> > the cmake build tree without a problem.
> 
> It looks like a missing dependency: qpidbroker needs to be installed
> first for the install relink to find it.

Busted dependency's got my vote: libqpidbroker never ends up installed in /usr/local/lib.  I'd imagine the LD path wouldn't matter given the command explicitly states -L/usr/local/lib ...

> 
> Or perhaps the default install location /usr/local/lib isn't in the
> ld
> path for some reason.
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org

Re: 0.20 release update - proposed final RC4 is available

Posted by Andrew Stitcher <as...@redhat.com>.

On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 11:44 -0500, Ken Giusti wrote:
> Hi Justin,
> 
> I have hit a problem testing RC4 on my debian-6 i686 VM:
> 
> I pulled down qpid-0.20.tar, did "./bootstrap && ./configure && make && make test"  - all fine, but when I tried to 'make install' as root:
> 
> libtool: relink: g++ -shared -nostdlib /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/crti.o /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/crtbeginS.o  qpid/ha/.libs/Backup.o qpid/ha/.libs/BrokerInfo.o qpid/ha/.libs/BrokerReplicator.o qpid/ha/.libs/ConnectionObserver.o qpid/ha/.libs/HaBroker.o qpid/ha/.libs/HaPlugin.o qpid/ha/.libs/Membership.o qpid/ha/.libs/Primary.o qpid/ha/.libs/QueueGuard.o qpid/ha/.libs/QueueReplicator.o qpid/ha/.libs/ReplicatingSubscription.o qpid/ha/.libs/ReplicationTest.o qpid/ha/.libs/StatusCheck.o qpid/ha/.libs/RemoteBackup.o qpid/ha/.libs/types.o   -L/usr/local/lib -lqpidbroker -lqpidmessaging -L/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5 -L/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib -L/lib/../lib -L/usr/lib/../lib -L/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../.. -L/usr/lib/i486-linux-gnu -lstdc++ -lm -lc -lgcc_s /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/crtendS.o /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/crtn.o    -Wl,-soname -Wl,ha.so -o .libs/ha.so
> /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lqpidbroker
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> libtool: install: error: relink `ha.la' with the above command before installing it
> make[3]: *** [install-dmoduleexecLTLIBRARIES] Error 1
> 
> 
> This appears to be related to the automake configuration: I then tried to rebuild using cmake, I was able to 'make install' from the cmake build tree without a problem.

It looks like a missing dependency: qpidbroker needs to be installed
first for the install relink to find it.

Or perhaps the default install location /usr/local/lib isn't in the ld
path for some reason.

Andrew



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org

Re: 0.20 release update - proposed final RC4 is available

Posted by Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com>.

Hi Justin,

I have hit a problem testing RC4 on my debian-6 i686 VM:

I pulled down qpid-0.20.tar, did "./bootstrap && ./configure && make && make test"  - all fine, but when I tried to 'make install' as root:

libtool: relink: g++ -shared -nostdlib /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/crti.o /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/crtbeginS.o  qpid/ha/.libs/Backup.o qpid/ha/.libs/BrokerInfo.o qpid/ha/.libs/BrokerReplicator.o qpid/ha/.libs/ConnectionObserver.o qpid/ha/.libs/HaBroker.o qpid/ha/.libs/HaPlugin.o qpid/ha/.libs/Membership.o qpid/ha/.libs/Primary.o qpid/ha/.libs/QueueGuard.o qpid/ha/.libs/QueueReplicator.o qpid/ha/.libs/ReplicatingSubscription.o qpid/ha/.libs/ReplicationTest.o qpid/ha/.libs/StatusCheck.o qpid/ha/.libs/RemoteBackup.o qpid/ha/.libs/types.o   -L/usr/local/lib -lqpidbroker -lqpidmessaging -L/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5 -L/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib -L/lib/../lib -L/usr/lib/../lib -L/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../.. -L/usr/lib/i486-linux-gnu -lstdc++ -lm -lc -lgcc_s /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/crtendS.o /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/crtn.o    -Wl,-soname -Wl,ha.so -o .libs/ha.so
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lqpidbroker
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
libtool: install: error: relink `ha.la' with the above command before installing it
make[3]: *** [install-dmoduleexecLTLIBRARIES] Error 1


This appears to be related to the automake configuration: I then tried to rebuild using cmake, I was able to 'make install' from the cmake build tree without a problem.


-K

----- Original Message -----
> Hi, everyone.  The proposed final 0.20 release candidate, RC4, is
> available here:
> 
>   http://people.apache.org/~jross/qpid-0.20-rc4/
> 
> My testing showed everything in good shape, including the proton
> integration.
> 
> RC4 has the following changes versus RC3:
> 
>   r1430909 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>   QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may
>   produce
>   suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
>   without good cause
> 
>   r1430904 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>   QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may
>   produce
>   suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions
>   without good cause
> 
>   r1430554 | astitcher | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 5 lines
>   QPID-4095: Move the directory iteration into FileSysDir
> 
>   r1430452 | jross | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 1 line
>   QPID-4368: Add missing dist file
> 
>   r1430321 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>   QPID-4521: ensure that the routing key is properly passed to the
>   alternate Topic exchange by the adapter. Add unit tests for the
>   adapter methods.
> 
>   r1430320 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>   QPID-4519: return true for VirtualHost MBean isStatusEnabled, dont
>   update stats when doing so, and stop using a synchronized method as
>   a
>   result
> 
>   r1430319 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines
>   QPID-4512: stop the delete visitor indicating completion upon the
>   first matching queue entry, or any for that matter: it needs to
>   check
>   them all.
> 
>   r1424598 | kgiusti | (Thu, 20 Dec 2012) | 1 line
>   NO-JIRA: merge compile fix from trunk
> 
>   r1423964 | robbie | (Wed, 19 Dec 2012) | 6 lines
>   QPID-4511: move the broker-plugins lib dir under build/scratch to
>   prevent it being included in the binary produced by 'ant release'.
> 
> The artifacts are signed, and if approved by vote, these bits
> precisely would ship as 0.20 GA.  I'll follow this with a separate
> [VOTE] mail.
> 
> Thanks Alex, Keith, Robbie, and Ken for posting your test outcomes on
> the list.  It is very much appreciated.  Please try RC4 and prepare
> to
> vote!
> 
> Thanks,
> Justin
> 
> ---
> 0.20 release page: https://cwiki.apache.org/qpid/020-release.html
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org