You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> on 2014/02/03 16:41:34 UTC
Re: activemq 5.9.1
I think it's safest to to just call trunk 5.10 now since it is taking
away some functionality. Would be nice to get some RCs going soon
since trunk is stable right now.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am still planning to release 5.9.1. We need to figure out if we want to
> cut 5.9.1 off of the current trunk at a stable checkpoint, or branch it off
> 5.9.0 and just select the relevant patches. While the feedback on this list
> is not conclusive (and I personally favor the 1st approach) I believe most
> would favor the 2nd approach. Last week there were over 200 patches that
> we'd have to look through and backport. The fastest we could get through
> this the sooner we'll have the release, I hope before mid Feb.
>
> Cheers,
> Hadrian
>
>
>
> On 01/30/2014 03:31 PM, kal123 wrote:
>>
>> There were post for cutting 5.9.1 any update on timeline for this?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/activemq-5-9-1-tp4677074.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ 5.10.0 release
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Feb 5, 2014, at 12:15 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have enough cycles to cut a 5.10.0 this week off of the current trunk as Hiram suggested. Is there any issue/fix I should wait for?
Well, now that I’ve reopened many of the web-console related JIRA issues, we should go through the ones that do have patches attached and see if we can at least apply those patches.
Dan
>
> Thanks,
> Hadrian
>
>
> On 02/03/2014 10:41 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> I think it's safest to to just call trunk 5.10 now since it is taking
>> away some functionality. Would be nice to get some RCs going soon
>> since trunk is stable right now.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am still planning to release 5.9.1. We need to figure out if we want to
>>> cut 5.9.1 off of the current trunk at a stable checkpoint, or branch it off
>>> 5.9.0 and just select the relevant patches. While the feedback on this list
>>> is not conclusive (and I personally favor the 1st approach) I believe most
>>> would favor the 2nd approach. Last week there were over 200 patches that
>>> we'd have to look through and backport. The fastest we could get through
>>> this the sooner we'll have the release, I hope before mid Feb.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/30/2014 03:31 PM, kal123 wrote:
>>>> There were post for cutting 5.9.1 any update on timeline for this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/activemq-5-9-1-tp4677074.html
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ 5.10.0 release
Posted by rgooduru <go...@gmail.com>.
Do you have any update on the release date?
Thanks,
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/activemq-5-9-1-tp4677074p4679249.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ 5.10.0 release
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Yes, the goal is still to release asap. I did run full tests and the trunk is
stable. There are a few fixes I committed today and I want a confirmation from
Jenkins that nightly builds work too. There are a couple of known intermittent
failures in mqtt I may have to disable or try to fix today.
Cheers,
Hadrian
On Wednesday 05 March 2014 13:09:57 Paul Gale wrote:
> Given that both CXF and Camel have been released are there any remaining
> issues preventing the ActiveMQ 5.10 release from being cut?
>
> If none, can 5.10 be released this week?
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Will do. Looks like we're waiting for the vote on cxf 2.7.10 then. As
> > soon as artifacts are published I'll release camel and then activemq.
> > Hadrian
> >
> > On 02/06/2014 02:50 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Paul Gale <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> If release 5.10.0 of ActiveMQ is going to be cut then you might as
> >>> well update the bundled Camel from 2.12.1 to 2.12.2, no? According to
> >>> the Camel site this dot release contains 145 fixes.
> >>>
> >>> Yes I have logged ticket for this
> >>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5030
> >>
> >> We need to release Camel first and then upgrade AMQ to include the
> >> latest Camel release.
> >> The Camel source code on 2.12 branch is ready for release, so if you
> >> have free cycles then IMHO its better to start with Camel and then
> >> afterwards AMQ.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:32 PM, <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> >>>> Hi Hadrian,
> >>>>
> >>>> I have some OSGi related enhancements and fixes to push, but nothing
> >>>> blocker
> >>>> for the release (the blockers haven been already pushed).
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> JB
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2014-02-05 18:15, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
> >>>>> I have enough cycles to cut a 5.10.0 this week off of the current
> >>>>> trunk as Hiram suggested. Is there any issue/fix I should wait for?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Hadrian
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 02/03/2014 10:41 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >>>>>> I think it's safest to to just call trunk 5.10 now since it is
> >>>>>> taking away some functionality. Would be nice to get some RCs going
> >>>>>> soon since trunk is stable right now.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea
> >>>>>> <hz...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I am still planning to release 5.9.1. We need to figure out if we
> >>>>>>> want
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> cut 5.9.1 off of the current trunk at a stable checkpoint, or
> >>>>>>> branch it
> >>>>>>> off
> >>>>>>> 5.9.0 and just select the relevant patches. While the feedback on
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>> list
> >>>>>>> is not conclusive (and I personally favor the 1st approach) I
> >>>>>>> believe most
> >>>>>>> would favor the 2nd approach. Last week there were over 200 patches
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> we'd have to look through and backport. The fastest we could get
> >>>>>>> through
> >>>>>>> this the sooner we'll have the release, I hope before mid Feb.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>> Hadrian
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 01/30/2014 03:31 PM, kal123 wrote:
> >>>>>>>> There were post for cutting 5.9.1 any update on timeline for this?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> View this message in context:
> >>>>>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/activemq-5-9-1-tp4677074.htm
> >>>>>>>>l Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ 5.10.0 release
Posted by Paul Gale <pa...@gmail.com>.
Given that both CXF and Camel have been released are there any remaining
issues preventing the ActiveMQ 5.10 release from being cut?
If none, can 5.10 be released this week?
Thanks,
Paul
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Will do. Looks like we're waiting for the vote on cxf 2.7.10 then. As soon
> as artifacts are published I'll release camel and then activemq.
> Hadrian
>
>
>
> On 02/06/2014 02:50 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Paul Gale <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> If release 5.10.0 of ActiveMQ is going to be cut then you might as
>>> well update the bundled Camel from 2.12.1 to 2.12.2, no? According to
>>> the Camel site this dot release contains 145 fixes.
>>>
>>> Yes I have logged ticket for this
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5030
>>
>> We need to release Camel first and then upgrade AMQ to include the
>> latest Camel release.
>> The Camel source code on 2.12 branch is ready for release, so if you
>> have free cycles then IMHO its better to start with Camel and then
>> afterwards AMQ.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:32 PM, <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Hadrian,
>>>>
>>>> I have some OSGi related enhancements and fixes to push, but nothing
>>>> blocker
>>>> for the release (the blockers haven been already pushed).
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> JB
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2014-02-05 18:15, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have enough cycles to cut a 5.10.0 this week off of the current
>>>>> trunk as Hiram suggested. Is there any issue/fix I should wait for?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 02/03/2014 10:41 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it's safest to to just call trunk 5.10 now since it is taking
>>>>>> away some functionality. Would be nice to get some RCs going soon
>>>>>> since trunk is stable right now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am still planning to release 5.9.1. We need to figure out if we
>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> cut 5.9.1 off of the current trunk at a stable checkpoint, or branch
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> off
>>>>>>> 5.9.0 and just select the relevant patches. While the feedback on
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>> is not conclusive (and I personally favor the 1st approach) I believe
>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>> would favor the 2nd approach. Last week there were over 200 patches
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> we'd have to look through and backport. The fastest we could get
>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>> this the sooner we'll have the release, I hope before mid Feb.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/30/2014 03:31 PM, kal123 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There were post for cutting 5.9.1 any update on timeline for this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/activemq-5-9-1-tp4677074.html
>>>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ 5.10.0 release
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Will do. Looks like we're waiting for the vote on cxf 2.7.10 then. As
soon as artifacts are published I'll release camel and then activemq.
Hadrian
On 02/06/2014 02:50 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Paul Gale <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> If release 5.10.0 of ActiveMQ is going to be cut then you might as
>> well update the bundled Camel from 2.12.1 to 2.12.2, no? According to
>> the Camel site this dot release contains 145 fixes.
>>
> Yes I have logged ticket for this
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5030
>
> We need to release Camel first and then upgrade AMQ to include the
> latest Camel release.
> The Camel source code on 2.12 branch is ready for release, so if you
> have free cycles then IMHO its better to start with Camel and then
> afterwards AMQ.
>
>> Thanks,
>> Paul
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:32 PM, <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>>> Hi Hadrian,
>>>
>>> I have some OSGi related enhancements and fixes to push, but nothing blocker
>>> for the release (the blockers haven been already pushed).
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2014-02-05 18:15, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>> I have enough cycles to cut a 5.10.0 this week off of the current
>>>> trunk as Hiram suggested. Is there any issue/fix I should wait for?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Hadrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 02/03/2014 10:41 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>> I think it's safest to to just call trunk 5.10 now since it is taking
>>>>> away some functionality. Would be nice to get some RCs going soon
>>>>> since trunk is stable right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am still planning to release 5.9.1. We need to figure out if we want
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> cut 5.9.1 off of the current trunk at a stable checkpoint, or branch it
>>>>>> off
>>>>>> 5.9.0 and just select the relevant patches. While the feedback on this
>>>>>> list
>>>>>> is not conclusive (and I personally favor the 1st approach) I believe
>>>>>> most
>>>>>> would favor the 2nd approach. Last week there were over 200 patches that
>>>>>> we'd have to look through and backport. The fastest we could get through
>>>>>> this the sooner we'll have the release, I hope before mid Feb.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/30/2014 03:31 PM, kal123 wrote:
>>>>>>> There were post for cutting 5.9.1 any update on timeline for this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/activemq-5-9-1-tp4677074.html
>>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ 5.10.0 release
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Paul Gale <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If release 5.10.0 of ActiveMQ is going to be cut then you might as
> well update the bundled Camel from 2.12.1 to 2.12.2, no? According to
> the Camel site this dot release contains 145 fixes.
>
Yes I have logged ticket for this
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5030
We need to release Camel first and then upgrade AMQ to include the
latest Camel release.
The Camel source code on 2.12 branch is ready for release, so if you
have free cycles then IMHO its better to start with Camel and then
afterwards AMQ.
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:32 PM, <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>> Hi Hadrian,
>>
>> I have some OSGi related enhancements and fixes to push, but nothing blocker
>> for the release (the blockers haven been already pushed).
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>>
>> On 2014-02-05 18:15, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>
>>> I have enough cycles to cut a 5.10.0 this week off of the current
>>> trunk as Hiram suggested. Is there any issue/fix I should wait for?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02/03/2014 10:41 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think it's safest to to just call trunk 5.10 now since it is taking
>>>> away some functionality. Would be nice to get some RCs going soon
>>>> since trunk is stable right now.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am still planning to release 5.9.1. We need to figure out if we want
>>>>> to
>>>>> cut 5.9.1 off of the current trunk at a stable checkpoint, or branch it
>>>>> off
>>>>> 5.9.0 and just select the relevant patches. While the feedback on this
>>>>> list
>>>>> is not conclusive (and I personally favor the 1st approach) I believe
>>>>> most
>>>>> would favor the 2nd approach. Last week there were over 200 patches that
>>>>> we'd have to look through and backport. The fastest we could get through
>>>>> this the sooner we'll have the release, I hope before mid Feb.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/30/2014 03:31 PM, kal123 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There were post for cutting 5.9.1 any update on timeline for this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/activemq-5-9-1-tp4677074.html
>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
Red Hat, Inc.
Email: cibsen@redhat.com
Twitter: davsclaus
Blog: http://davsclaus.com
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
Make your Camel applications look hawt, try: http://hawt.io
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ 5.10.0 release
Posted by Paul Gale <pa...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
If release 5.10.0 of ActiveMQ is going to be cut then you might as
well update the bundled Camel from 2.12.1 to 2.12.2, no? According to
the Camel site this dot release contains 145 fixes.
Thanks,
Paul
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:32 PM, <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> Hi Hadrian,
>
> I have some OSGi related enhancements and fixes to push, but nothing blocker
> for the release (the blockers haven been already pushed).
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>
> On 2014-02-05 18:15, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>
>> I have enough cycles to cut a 5.10.0 this week off of the current
>> trunk as Hiram suggested. Is there any issue/fix I should wait for?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>> On 02/03/2014 10:41 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>
>>> I think it's safest to to just call trunk 5.10 now since it is taking
>>> away some functionality. Would be nice to get some RCs going soon
>>> since trunk is stable right now.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I am still planning to release 5.9.1. We need to figure out if we want
>>>> to
>>>> cut 5.9.1 off of the current trunk at a stable checkpoint, or branch it
>>>> off
>>>> 5.9.0 and just select the relevant patches. While the feedback on this
>>>> list
>>>> is not conclusive (and I personally favor the 1st approach) I believe
>>>> most
>>>> would favor the 2nd approach. Last week there were over 200 patches that
>>>> we'd have to look through and backport. The fastest we could get through
>>>> this the sooner we'll have the release, I hope before mid Feb.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Hadrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01/30/2014 03:31 PM, kal123 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There were post for cutting 5.9.1 any update on timeline for this?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/activemq-5-9-1-tp4677074.html
>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ 5.10.0 release
Posted by jb...@nanthrax.net.
Hi Hadrian,
I have some OSGi related enhancements and fixes to push, but nothing
blocker for the release (the blockers haven been already pushed).
Regards
JB
On 2014-02-05 18:15, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
> I have enough cycles to cut a 5.10.0 this week off of the current
> trunk as Hiram suggested. Is there any issue/fix I should wait for?
>
> Thanks,
> Hadrian
>
>
> On 02/03/2014 10:41 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> I think it's safest to to just call trunk 5.10 now since it is taking
>> away some functionality. Would be nice to get some RCs going soon
>> since trunk is stable right now.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am still planning to release 5.9.1. We need to figure out if we
>>> want to
>>> cut 5.9.1 off of the current trunk at a stable checkpoint, or branch
>>> it off
>>> 5.9.0 and just select the relevant patches. While the feedback on
>>> this list
>>> is not conclusive (and I personally favor the 1st approach) I believe
>>> most
>>> would favor the 2nd approach. Last week there were over 200 patches
>>> that
>>> we'd have to look through and backport. The fastest we could get
>>> through
>>> this the sooner we'll have the release, I hope before mid Feb.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/30/2014 03:31 PM, kal123 wrote:
>>>> There were post for cutting 5.9.1 any update on timeline for this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/activemq-5-9-1-tp4677074.html
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>>
[HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ 5.10.0 release
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
I have enough cycles to cut a 5.10.0 this week off of the current trunk
as Hiram suggested. Is there any issue/fix I should wait for?
Thanks,
Hadrian
On 02/03/2014 10:41 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> I think it's safest to to just call trunk 5.10 now since it is taking
> away some functionality. Would be nice to get some RCs going soon
> since trunk is stable right now.
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am still planning to release 5.9.1. We need to figure out if we want to
>> cut 5.9.1 off of the current trunk at a stable checkpoint, or branch it off
>> 5.9.0 and just select the relevant patches. While the feedback on this list
>> is not conclusive (and I personally favor the 1st approach) I believe most
>> would favor the 2nd approach. Last week there were over 200 patches that
>> we'd have to look through and backport. The fastest we could get through
>> this the sooner we'll have the release, I hope before mid Feb.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01/30/2014 03:31 PM, kal123 wrote:
>>> There were post for cutting 5.9.1 any update on timeline for this?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/activemq-5-9-1-tp4677074.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
>
Re: activemq 5.9.1
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
We tend to avoid dong adding the RC bits to the version since they
voted on bits are held in a staging area.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1. I think we'd still have to do a 5.9.1, but it's a good idea. While I
> sort through the issues for 5.9.1 I could cut a 5.10.0-RC1. Or should we go
> straight to a 5.10.0 and redo it if necessary?
>
> Hadrian
>
>
>
> On 02/03/2014 10:41 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>
>> I think it's safest to to just call trunk 5.10 now since it is taking
>> away some functionality. Would be nice to get some RCs going soon
>> since trunk is stable right now.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am still planning to release 5.9.1. We need to figure out if we want to
>>> cut 5.9.1 off of the current trunk at a stable checkpoint, or branch it
>>> off
>>> 5.9.0 and just select the relevant patches. While the feedback on this
>>> list
>>> is not conclusive (and I personally favor the 1st approach) I believe
>>> most
>>> would favor the 2nd approach. Last week there were over 200 patches that
>>> we'd have to look through and backport. The fastest we could get through
>>> this the sooner we'll have the release, I hope before mid Feb.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/30/2014 03:31 PM, kal123 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There were post for cutting 5.9.1 any update on timeline for this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/activemq-5-9-1-tp4677074.html
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: activemq 5.9.1
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
+1. I think we'd still have to do a 5.9.1, but it's a good idea. While I
sort through the issues for 5.9.1 I could cut a 5.10.0-RC1. Or should we
go straight to a 5.10.0 and redo it if necessary?
Hadrian
On 02/03/2014 10:41 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> I think it's safest to to just call trunk 5.10 now since it is taking
> away some functionality. Would be nice to get some RCs going soon
> since trunk is stable right now.
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am still planning to release 5.9.1. We need to figure out if we want to
>> cut 5.9.1 off of the current trunk at a stable checkpoint, or branch it off
>> 5.9.0 and just select the relevant patches. While the feedback on this list
>> is not conclusive (and I personally favor the 1st approach) I believe most
>> would favor the 2nd approach. Last week there were over 200 patches that
>> we'd have to look through and backport. The fastest we could get through
>> this the sooner we'll have the release, I hope before mid Feb.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01/30/2014 03:31 PM, kal123 wrote:
>>> There were post for cutting 5.9.1 any update on timeline for this?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/activemq-5-9-1-tp4677074.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
>