You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> on 2022/03/01 12:43:52 UTC
Re: [PROPOSAL] ActiveMQ 5.17.0 end of this week
Where are we on the release timetable now? Looks like AMQ-7309 still needs
to be reverted and the PR is still open for jetty.
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's probably fine to change since the uber jar can't be used anymore, as
> long as the tests all pass for things like websocket and the web console
> fires up of course, etc.
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:37 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> @JB Let me know if it would be helpful to look at AMQ-7309 revert or
>> other release tasks. I’ll be online and on Slack all day.
>>
>> > On Feb 28, 2022, at 9:04 AM, Christopher Shannon <
>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Good catch Robbie, I forgot about still needing to revert 7309 to keep
>> all
>> > the JMS 2.0 stuff in 5.18.0
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:56 AM Robbie Gemmell <
>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I would say the same things (well, did on the PR). Either way, only
>> >> other thing to do seems to be creating a branch and reverting 7309.
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 14:19, Christopher Shannon
>> >> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I will say that we can update the version of Jetty but if you want to
>> >> play
>> >>> it safe since you are about the cut the release you could keep the
>> "all"
>> >>> jar for now and do the dependency changes in 5.18.0
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:01 AM Christopher Shannon <
>> >>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> +1, i've never liked including jetty-all and might as well keep it up
>> >> to
>> >>>> date with a major release.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I think we are good to go , I did a review of a 5.17.0 snapshot build
>> >> last
>> >>>> week and things looked good. I will review the official release of
>> >> course
>> >>>> but I think we are in good shape.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:45 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>> >>>> jeanbaptiste.onofre@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Hi guys,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> FYI, I merged log4j2 support on main for 5.17.0.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> For security reasons and being up to date with Jetty, I would like
>> to
>> >>>>> include https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/784
>> >>>>> Thoughts ?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Regarding the release, I think we are good. If there are no
>> >>>>> objections, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote tonight (my time).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Regards
>> >>>>> JB
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:51 PM Robbie Gemmell <
>> >> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> FWIW it seems like it should be a simple enough revert once the
>> >> branch
>> >>>>>> is made. Looks like 3 files (as below) have been changed since the
>> >>>>>> commit in a way that would need a decision upon revert. I guess
>> >> those
>> >>>>>> are likely to be keeping the changes from main. Assuming so, seems
>> >>>>>> like "git revert 67256c61b -Xours" would work.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Though, perhaps worth looking closer at
>> >>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml to see if the
>> >>>>>> change there (and related property restored in the module pom file)
>> >> is
>> >>>>>> needed, it doesnt immediately seem that related to the api change.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> both modified: activemq-client/pom.xml
>> >>>>>> both modified:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>
>> activemq-karaf-itest/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/karaf/itest/ActiveMQBrokerNdCamelFeatureTest.java
>> >>>>>> both modified:
>> >> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 16:01, Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> ok, lets go
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Christopher Shannon <
>> >>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Matt, the reason to roll back is for what Robbie just said.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I know the discussion originally was that the first step of this
>> >>>>> would be
>> >>>>>>>> to include the jar with no impl and just UOE. But I've been
>> >>>>> convinced
>> >>>>>>>> after all the discussion the past couple weeks on this that
>> >> there's
>> >>>>> no real
>> >>>>>>>> point to doing so now because A) you already get the same
>> >> behavior
>> >>>>> with
>> >>>>>>>> including the jar yourself and B) there will be real client impl
>> >>>>> changes
>> >>>>>>>> coming shortly with 5.18.0 it just makes a lot more sense to me
>> >> to
>> >>>>> wait and
>> >>>>>>>> include everything in 5.18.0.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM Robbie Gemmell <
>> >>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> It really doesnt make sense to include changing the API in
>> >> 5.17.0
>> >>>>>>>>> without any impl, it would be very odd to retain to me, and
>> >> also
>> >>>>> quite
>> >>>>>>>>> misleading. It may also unnecessarily inconvenience people that
>> >>>>> have
>> >>>>>>>>> previously adapted their builds to other bits including a
>> >>>>>>>>> likely-different 2.0 API artifact if they needed it and
>> >> excluding
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>> 1.1 api, into updating their excludes despite no impl change.
>> >> It
>> >>>>> just
>> >>>>>>>>> makes sense to unwind it.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 14:30, Matt Pavlovich <
>> >> mattrpav@gmail.com>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Hey Chris-
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> I believe the JMS 2.0 impl is in good shape (fighting one test
>> >>>>> that
>> >>>>>>>>> works-locally-fails-on-Apache-CI fun!). Given the desire to get
>> >>>>> 5.17.0 out
>> >>>>>>>>> soon, I can get behind allowing more time for others to review
>> >> and
>> >>>>> roll
>> >>>>>>>>> with it in 5.18.0.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> How about keeping AMQ-7309 in 5.17.0 and go forward with your
>> >>>>> suggestion
>> >>>>>>>>> of moving on to 5.18.0 with JMS 2.0, Jakarta updates, etc?
>> >>>>> AMQ-7309 is well
>> >>>>>>>>> reviewed and been merged for 4 months.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>>>>> Matt
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 2:10 PM, Christopher Shannon <
>> >>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> In terms of maintenance if we get out 2.18, 2.19, etc then
>> >> 2.17
>> >>>>> can
>> >>>>>>>>> just
>> >>>>>>>>>>> get important fixes or be made EOL and we can move on. Long
>> >> lived
>> >>>>>>>>> branches
>> >>>>>>>>>>> and support are not necessary if we keep up with more
>> >> frequent
>> >>>>>>>>> releases.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2.17.0 is at a logical cut off point where it's at now and
>> >> I'm
>> >>>>>>>>> definitely
>> >>>>>>>>>>> not in favor of adding something brand new (Jakarta changes)
>> >> last
>> >>>>>>>>> minute
>> >>>>>>>>>>> and I doubt others are either.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> So again..it's time to move on. As everyone else already
>> >> seems
>> >>>>> to be in
>> >>>>>>>>>>> agreement with (JB, Tim, Robbie) let's just do the release
>> >> this
>> >>>>> week
>> >>>>>>>>> with
>> >>>>>>>>>>> the current changes and then move on to 2.18.0 with JMS 2.0,
>> >>>>> Jakarta
>> >>>>>>>>>>> updates, etc.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:49 PM Matt Pavlovich <
>> >>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey All-
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I get the idea that getting a JDK 11-based released is a
>> >> good
>> >>>>> thing,
>> >>>>>>>>> but I
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> also think we should consider the jakarta alignment as part
>> >> of
>> >>>>> what
>> >>>>>>>>> active
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> branches are supported. This is the path other projects have
>> >>>>> taken and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> helps users align things when they are assembling pieces for
>> >>>>> their
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> environment
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If we go with the proposed plan in this thread-- we add JDK
>> >> 11,
>> >>>>> but
>> >>>>>>>>> do not
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> move the ball forward on anything jakarta related — we add
>> >>>>> another
>> >>>>>>>>> active
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> branch to maintain. As log4j showed us, having a bunch of
>> >> active
>> >>>>>>>>> branches
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> out there is a lot of work when it is time to crank out
>> >> security
>> >>>>>>>>> fixes.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, keeping up with Jetty and other dependencies
>> >> is
>> >>>>> going to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> become more difficult if we do not start taking steps to
>> >> align
>> >>>>> JDK +
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jakarta in supported branches.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I also feel that the current status of the JMS 2.0 phased
>> >>>>>>>>> implementation
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> is closer to done than the amount of work to revert
>> >> AMQ-7309.
>> >>>>> PR-729
>> >>>>>>>>> has
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 200+ test cases and has addressed all feedback as of this
>> >>>>> morning.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> JMS 2.0 tested and validated:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - All destinations (queue, topic, temp-topic, temp-queue)
>> >> and
>> >>>>> all
>> >>>>>>>>> message
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> types (bytes, map, object, stream, and text)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - All message property types (bytes, string, int, float,
>> >> double,
>> >>>>>>>>> short,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> etc.) including min+max data ranges
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Foreign message support
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Range checking on priority and deliveryMode
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Topic Durable Subscriber (JMS v1.x alignment)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Pavlovich
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 8:16 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>> >>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt @Robbie @Tim is it ok for you to have 5.17.0 with
>> >>>>> Spring5,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j2, JDK11 and include JMS2 in 5.18.0 that can happen
>> >>>>> quickly ?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:09 PM Christopher Shannon
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 on moving forward without JMS 2.0 until 5.18.0.
>> >> The
>> >>>>> reality
>> >>>>>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> there is no consensus to keep it in 5.17.0. There are
>> >> multiple
>> >>>>> people
>> >>>>>>>>> who
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> do not want to include it in 5.17.0 so it's time to move on
>> >>>>> without.
>> >>>>>>>>> We
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> also need to revert the commits from
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7309 as there is
>> >> no
>> >>>>> reason
>> >>>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> include that now.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I say go ahead with the release and vote (after
>> >> wrapping
>> >>>>> things
>> >>>>>>>>> up
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> including reverting that AMQ-7309 JMS 2 stuff).
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty tired of the back and forth and fighting over
>> >>>>> version
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> numbers to be honest and just want to move on. It's not
>> >>>>> productive to
>> >>>>>>>>> keep
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> arguing anymore over a version...5.18.0 can literally go out
>> >>>>> whenever
>> >>>>>>>>> we
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> want.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 8:50 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>> >>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quick update about 5.17.0 release:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I fixed/squash log4j2 update PR
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/662). I think
>> >> it's
>> >>>>> OK
>> >>>>>>>>> (I'm
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting for the end of Jenkins).
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Apache POM 25 update PR
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Spring 5.3.16 update PR
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, ActiveMQ 5.17.0 is almost ready from this standpoint.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I would like to start the vote asap, It would be
>> >> great to
>> >>>>> act
>> >>>>>>>>> about
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS2. Do you want me to start with different options ?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:55 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>> >>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I worked on the log4j2 update PR this weekend, fixing
>> >>>>> almost all
>> >>>>>>>>> unit
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests using a custom appender. I just have to fix the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-web-demo test and squash, and the PR will be
>> >> good
>> >>>>> to be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged. I will do that today.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, later today and tomorrow I will work on using
>> >> jetty
>> >>>>> modules
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of jetty-all and update to Jetty 9.4.45.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do a pass on Jira and PRs, especially the ones
>> >> from
>> >>>>> Matt.
>> >>>>>>>>> @Matt
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please ping me on slack to check together the
>> >>>>> status of
>> >>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs ?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding this, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote
>> >> this
>> >>>>>>>>> Thursday if
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no objections.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>
>>
>>
Re: [PROPOSAL] ActiveMQ 5.17.0 end of this week
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
By the way, I'm doing the Jira triage right now.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:41 PM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> I created a branch for the 5.17.0 release into activemq-5.17.x and
> submitted a PR to set CI run: https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/786
> There were a couple of minor conflicts but nothing major to fix.
>
> I bumped the version on the main branch to 5.18.0-SNAPSHOT
>
> If CI is good I think we should be ok to proceed with the release.
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 9:38 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > I merged the Jetty PR in the meantime.
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:29 PM Christopher Shannon <
> > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'll open a PR for revert it
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 8:33 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > About jetty PR, I gonna merge it.
> > > >
> > > > For AMQ-7309, I guess Matt should revert it, right ?
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > JB
> > > >
> > > > Le mar. 1 mars 2022 à 13:43, Christopher Shannon <
> > > > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > Where are we on the release timetable now? Looks like AMQ-7309
> still
> > > > needs
> > > > > to be reverted and the PR is still open for jetty.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon <
> > > > > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It's probably fine to change since the uber jar can't be used
> > > anymore,
> > > > as
> > > > > > long as the tests all pass for things like websocket and the web
> > > > console
> > > > > > fires up of course, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:37 AM Matt Pavlovich <
> > mattrpav@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> @JB Let me know if it would be helpful to look at AMQ-7309
> revert
> > or
> > > > > >> other release tasks. I’ll be online and on Slack all day.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > On Feb 28, 2022, at 9:04 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> > > > > >> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Good catch Robbie, I forgot about still needing to revert 7309
> > to
> > > > keep
> > > > > >> all
> > > > > >> > the JMS 2.0 stuff in 5.18.0
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:56 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > > > > >> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> I would say the same things (well, did on the PR). Either
> way,
> > > only
> > > > > >> >> other thing to do seems to be creating a branch and reverting
> > > 7309.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 14:19, Christopher Shannon
> > > > > >> >> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> >>> I will say that we can update the version of Jetty but if
> you
> > > want
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> play
> > > > > >> >>> it safe since you are about the cut the release you could
> keep
> > > the
> > > > > >> "all"
> > > > > >> >>> jar for now and do the dependency changes in 5.18.0
> > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> >>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:01 AM Christopher Shannon <
> > > > > >> >>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> >>>> +1, i've never liked including jetty-all and might as well
> > keep
> > > > it
> > > > > up
> > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> >>>> date with a major release.
> > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > >> >>>> I think we are good to go , I did a review of a 5.17.0
> > snapshot
> > > > > build
> > > > > >> >> last
> > > > > >> >>>> week and things looked good. I will review the official
> > release
> > > > of
> > > > > >> >> course
> > > > > >> >>>> but I think we are in good shape.
> > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > >> >>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:45 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> > > > > >> >>>> jeanbaptiste.onofre@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>> Hi guys,
> > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>> FYI, I merged log4j2 support on main for 5.17.0.
> > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>> For security reasons and being up to date with Jetty, I
> > would
> > > > like
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >>>>> include https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/784
> > > > > >> >>>>> Thoughts ?
> > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>> Regarding the release, I think we are good. If there are
> no
> > > > > >> >>>>> objections, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote tonight
> > (my
> > > > > time).
> > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>> Regards
> > > > > >> >>>>> JB
> > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:51 PM Robbie Gemmell <
> > > > > >> >> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>> FWIW it seems like it should be a simple enough revert
> once
> > > the
> > > > > >> >> branch
> > > > > >> >>>>>> is made. Looks like 3 files (as below) have been changed
> > > since
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> >>>>>> commit in a way that would need a decision upon revert. I
> > > guess
> > > > > >> >> those
> > > > > >> >>>>>> are likely to be keeping the changes from main. Assuming
> > so,
> > > > > seems
> > > > > >> >>>>>> like "git revert 67256c61b -Xours" would work.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>> Though, perhaps worth looking closer at
> > > > > >> >>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml to
> see
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > > >> >>>>>> change there (and related property restored in the module
> > pom
> > > > > file)
> > > > > >> >> is
> > > > > >> >>>>>> needed, it doesnt immediately seem that related to the
> api
> > > > > change.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>> both modified: activemq-client/pom.xml
> > > > > >> >>>>>> both modified:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> activemq-karaf-itest/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/karaf/itest/ActiveMQBrokerNdCamelFeatureTest.java
> > > > > >> >>>>>> both modified:
> > > > > >> >> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml
> > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 16:01, Matt Pavlovich <
> > > > mattrpav@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>> ok, lets go
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> > > > > >> >>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Matt, the reason to roll back is for what Robbie just
> > said.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> I know the discussion originally was that the first
> step
> > of
> > > > > this
> > > > > >> >>>>> would be
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> to include the jar with no impl and just UOE. But I've
> > > been
> > > > > >> >>>>> convinced
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> after all the discussion the past couple weeks on this
> > that
> > > > > >> >> there's
> > > > > >> >>>>> no real
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> point to doing so now because A) you already get the
> same
> > > > > >> >> behavior
> > > > > >> >>>>> with
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> including the jar yourself and B) there will be real
> > client
> > > > > impl
> > > > > >> >>>>> changes
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> coming shortly with 5.18.0 it just makes a lot more
> sense
> > > to
> > > > me
> > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> >>>>> wait and
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> include everything in 5.18.0.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > > > > >> >>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> It really doesnt make sense to include changing the
> API
> > in
> > > > > >> >> 5.17.0
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> without any impl, it would be very odd to retain to
> me,
> > > and
> > > > > >> >> also
> > > > > >> >>>>> quite
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> misleading. It may also unnecessarily inconvenience
> > people
> > > > > that
> > > > > >> >>>>> have
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> previously adapted their builds to other bits
> including
> > a
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> likely-different 2.0 API artifact if they needed it
> and
> > > > > >> >> excluding
> > > > > >> >>>>> the
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> 1.1 api, into updating their excludes despite no impl
> > > > change.
> > > > > >> >> It
> > > > > >> >>>>> just
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> makes sense to unwind it.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 14:30, Matt Pavlovich <
> > > > > >> >> mattrpav@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Hey Chris-
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> I believe the JMS 2.0 impl is in good shape (fighting
> > one
> > > > > test
> > > > > >> >>>>> that
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> works-locally-fails-on-Apache-CI fun!). Given the
> desire
> > > to
> > > > > get
> > > > > >> >>>>> 5.17.0 out
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> soon, I can get behind allowing more time for others
> to
> > > > review
> > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > >> >>>>> roll
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> with it in 5.18.0.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> How about keeping AMQ-7309 in 5.17.0 and go forward
> > with
> > > > your
> > > > > >> >>>>> suggestion
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> of moving on to 5.18.0 with JMS 2.0, Jakarta updates,
> > etc?
> > > > > >> >>>>> AMQ-7309 is well
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> reviewed and been merged for 4 months.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Matt
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 2:10 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> In terms of maintenance if we get out 2.18, 2.19,
> etc
> > > then
> > > > > >> >> 2.17
> > > > > >> >>>>> can
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> just
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> get important fixes or be made EOL and we can move
> on.
> > > > Long
> > > > > >> >> lived
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> branches
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> and support are not necessary if we keep up with
> more
> > > > > >> >> frequent
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> releases.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> 2.17.0 is at a logical cut off point where it's at
> now
> > > and
> > > > > >> >> I'm
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> definitely
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> not in favor of adding something brand new (Jakarta
> > > > changes)
> > > > > >> >> last
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> minute
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> and I doubt others are either.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> So again..it's time to move on. As everyone else
> > already
> > > > > >> >> seems
> > > > > >> >>>>> to be in
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> agreement with (JB, Tim, Robbie) let's just do the
> > > release
> > > > > >> >> this
> > > > > >> >>>>> week
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> the current changes and then move on to 2.18.0 with
> > JMS
> > > > 2.0,
> > > > > >> >>>>> Jakarta
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> updates, etc.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:49 PM Matt Pavlovich <
> > > > > >> >>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey All-
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I get the idea that getting a JDK 11-based released
> > is
> > > a
> > > > > >> >> good
> > > > > >> >>>>> thing,
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> but I
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> also think we should consider the jakarta alignment
> > as
> > > > part
> > > > > >> >> of
> > > > > >> >>>>> what
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> active
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> branches are supported. This is the path other
> > projects
> > > > > have
> > > > > >> >>>>> taken and
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> helps users align things when they are assembling
> > > pieces
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> >>>>> their
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> environment
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> If we go with the proposed plan in this thread-- we
> > add
> > > > JDK
> > > > > >> >> 11,
> > > > > >> >>>>> but
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> do not
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> move the ball forward on anything jakarta related —
> > we
> > > > add
> > > > > >> >>>>> another
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> active
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> branch to maintain. As log4j showed us, having a
> > bunch
> > > of
> > > > > >> >> active
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> branches
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> out there is a lot of work when it is time to crank
> > out
> > > > > >> >> security
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> fixes.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, keeping up with Jetty and other
> > > > dependencies
> > > > > >> >> is
> > > > > >> >>>>> going to
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> become more difficult if we do not start taking
> steps
> > > to
> > > > > >> >> align
> > > > > >> >>>>> JDK +
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> jakarta in supported branches.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I also feel that the current status of the JMS 2.0
> > > phased
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> implementation
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> is closer to done than the amount of work to revert
> > > > > >> >> AMQ-7309.
> > > > > >> >>>>> PR-729
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> has
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 200+ test cases and has addressed all feedback as
> of
> > > this
> > > > > >> >>>>> morning.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> JMS 2.0 tested and validated:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - All destinations (queue, topic, temp-topic,
> > > temp-queue)
> > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > >> >>>>> all
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> message
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> types (bytes, map, object, stream, and text)
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - All message property types (bytes, string, int,
> > > float,
> > > > > >> >> double,
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> short,
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> etc.) including min+max data ranges
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Foreign message support
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Range checking on priority and deliveryMode
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Topic Durable Subscriber (JMS v1.x alignment)
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Pavlovich
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 8:16 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> <
> > > > > >> >>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt @Robbie @Tim is it ok for you to have 5.17.0
> > > with
> > > > > >> >>>>> Spring5,
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j2, JDK11 and include JMS2 in 5.18.0 that can
> > > happen
> > > > > >> >>>>> quickly ?
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:09 PM Christopher
> Shannon
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 on moving forward without JMS 2.0 until
> > > 5.18.0.
> > > > > >> >> The
> > > > > >> >>>>> reality
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> there is no consensus to keep it in 5.17.0. There
> are
> > > > > >> >> multiple
> > > > > >> >>>>> people
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> who
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> do not want to include it in 5.17.0 so it's time to
> > > move
> > > > on
> > > > > >> >>>>> without.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> We
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> also need to revert the commits from
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7309 as
> > > there
> > > > is
> > > > > >> >> no
> > > > > >> >>>>> reason
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> include that now.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I say go ahead with the release and vote
> (after
> > > > > >> >> wrapping
> > > > > >> >>>>> things
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> up
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> including reverting that AMQ-7309 JMS 2 stuff).
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty tired of the back and forth and
> fighting
> > > > over
> > > > > >> >>>>> version
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> numbers to be honest and just want to move on. It's
> > not
> > > > > >> >>>>> productive to
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> keep
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> arguing anymore over a version...5.18.0 can
> literally
> > > go
> > > > > out
> > > > > >> >>>>> whenever
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> want.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 8:50 AM Jean-Baptiste
> > Onofré
> > > <
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quick update about 5.17.0 release:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I fixed/squash log4j2 update PR
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/662).
> I
> > > > think
> > > > > >> >> it's
> > > > > >> >>>>> OK
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> (I'm
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting for the end of Jenkins).
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Apache POM 25 update PR
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Spring 5.3.16 update PR
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, ActiveMQ 5.17.0 is almost ready from this
> > > > > standpoint.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I would like to start the vote asap, It would
> > be
> > > > > >> >> great to
> > > > > >> >>>>> act
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> about
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS2. Do you want me to start with different
> > > options ?
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:55 AM Jean-Baptiste
> > > Onofré <
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I worked on the log4j2 update PR this weekend,
> > > fixing
> > > > > >> >>>>> almost all
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> unit
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests using a custom appender. I just have to
> fix
> > > the
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-web-demo test and squash, and the PR
> > will
> > > be
> > > > > >> >> good
> > > > > >> >>>>> to be
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged. I will do that today.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, later today and tomorrow I will work on
> > using
> > > > > >> >> jetty
> > > > > >> >>>>> modules
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of jetty-all and update to Jetty
> 9.4.45.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do a pass on Jira and PRs, especially
> the
> > > ones
> > > > > >> >> from
> > > > > >> >>>>> Matt.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> @Matt
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please ping me on slack to check
> together
> > > the
> > > > > >> >>>>> status of
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs ?
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding this, I would like to submit 5.17.0
> to
> > > vote
> > > > > >> >> this
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> Thursday if
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no objections.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] ActiveMQ 5.17.0 end of this week
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Agree, gonna check the PR and CI. Then, I will proceed with the release.
Thanks Chris !
Regards
JB
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:41 PM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> I created a branch for the 5.17.0 release into activemq-5.17.x and
> submitted a PR to set CI run: https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/786
> There were a couple of minor conflicts but nothing major to fix.
>
> I bumped the version on the main branch to 5.18.0-SNAPSHOT
>
> If CI is good I think we should be ok to proceed with the release.
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 9:38 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > I merged the Jetty PR in the meantime.
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:29 PM Christopher Shannon <
> > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'll open a PR for revert it
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 8:33 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > About jetty PR, I gonna merge it.
> > > >
> > > > For AMQ-7309, I guess Matt should revert it, right ?
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > JB
> > > >
> > > > Le mar. 1 mars 2022 à 13:43, Christopher Shannon <
> > > > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > Where are we on the release timetable now? Looks like AMQ-7309
> still
> > > > needs
> > > > > to be reverted and the PR is still open for jetty.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon <
> > > > > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It's probably fine to change since the uber jar can't be used
> > > anymore,
> > > > as
> > > > > > long as the tests all pass for things like websocket and the web
> > > > console
> > > > > > fires up of course, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:37 AM Matt Pavlovich <
> > mattrpav@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> @JB Let me know if it would be helpful to look at AMQ-7309
> revert
> > or
> > > > > >> other release tasks. I’ll be online and on Slack all day.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > On Feb 28, 2022, at 9:04 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> > > > > >> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Good catch Robbie, I forgot about still needing to revert 7309
> > to
> > > > keep
> > > > > >> all
> > > > > >> > the JMS 2.0 stuff in 5.18.0
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:56 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > > > > >> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> I would say the same things (well, did on the PR). Either
> way,
> > > only
> > > > > >> >> other thing to do seems to be creating a branch and reverting
> > > 7309.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 14:19, Christopher Shannon
> > > > > >> >> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> >>> I will say that we can update the version of Jetty but if
> you
> > > want
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> play
> > > > > >> >>> it safe since you are about the cut the release you could
> keep
> > > the
> > > > > >> "all"
> > > > > >> >>> jar for now and do the dependency changes in 5.18.0
> > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> >>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:01 AM Christopher Shannon <
> > > > > >> >>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> >>>> +1, i've never liked including jetty-all and might as well
> > keep
> > > > it
> > > > > up
> > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> >>>> date with a major release.
> > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > >> >>>> I think we are good to go , I did a review of a 5.17.0
> > snapshot
> > > > > build
> > > > > >> >> last
> > > > > >> >>>> week and things looked good. I will review the official
> > release
> > > > of
> > > > > >> >> course
> > > > > >> >>>> but I think we are in good shape.
> > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > >> >>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:45 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> > > > > >> >>>> jeanbaptiste.onofre@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>> Hi guys,
> > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>> FYI, I merged log4j2 support on main for 5.17.0.
> > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>> For security reasons and being up to date with Jetty, I
> > would
> > > > like
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >>>>> include https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/784
> > > > > >> >>>>> Thoughts ?
> > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>> Regarding the release, I think we are good. If there are
> no
> > > > > >> >>>>> objections, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote tonight
> > (my
> > > > > time).
> > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>> Regards
> > > > > >> >>>>> JB
> > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:51 PM Robbie Gemmell <
> > > > > >> >> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>> FWIW it seems like it should be a simple enough revert
> once
> > > the
> > > > > >> >> branch
> > > > > >> >>>>>> is made. Looks like 3 files (as below) have been changed
> > > since
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> >>>>>> commit in a way that would need a decision upon revert. I
> > > guess
> > > > > >> >> those
> > > > > >> >>>>>> are likely to be keeping the changes from main. Assuming
> > so,
> > > > > seems
> > > > > >> >>>>>> like "git revert 67256c61b -Xours" would work.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>> Though, perhaps worth looking closer at
> > > > > >> >>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml to
> see
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > > >> >>>>>> change there (and related property restored in the module
> > pom
> > > > > file)
> > > > > >> >> is
> > > > > >> >>>>>> needed, it doesnt immediately seem that related to the
> api
> > > > > change.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>> both modified: activemq-client/pom.xml
> > > > > >> >>>>>> both modified:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> activemq-karaf-itest/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/karaf/itest/ActiveMQBrokerNdCamelFeatureTest.java
> > > > > >> >>>>>> both modified:
> > > > > >> >> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml
> > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 16:01, Matt Pavlovich <
> > > > mattrpav@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>> ok, lets go
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> > > > > >> >>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Matt, the reason to roll back is for what Robbie just
> > said.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> I know the discussion originally was that the first
> step
> > of
> > > > > this
> > > > > >> >>>>> would be
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> to include the jar with no impl and just UOE. But I've
> > > been
> > > > > >> >>>>> convinced
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> after all the discussion the past couple weeks on this
> > that
> > > > > >> >> there's
> > > > > >> >>>>> no real
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> point to doing so now because A) you already get the
> same
> > > > > >> >> behavior
> > > > > >> >>>>> with
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> including the jar yourself and B) there will be real
> > client
> > > > > impl
> > > > > >> >>>>> changes
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> coming shortly with 5.18.0 it just makes a lot more
> sense
> > > to
> > > > me
> > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> >>>>> wait and
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> include everything in 5.18.0.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > > > > >> >>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> It really doesnt make sense to include changing the
> API
> > in
> > > > > >> >> 5.17.0
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> without any impl, it would be very odd to retain to
> me,
> > > and
> > > > > >> >> also
> > > > > >> >>>>> quite
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> misleading. It may also unnecessarily inconvenience
> > people
> > > > > that
> > > > > >> >>>>> have
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> previously adapted their builds to other bits
> including
> > a
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> likely-different 2.0 API artifact if they needed it
> and
> > > > > >> >> excluding
> > > > > >> >>>>> the
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> 1.1 api, into updating their excludes despite no impl
> > > > change.
> > > > > >> >> It
> > > > > >> >>>>> just
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> makes sense to unwind it.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 14:30, Matt Pavlovich <
> > > > > >> >> mattrpav@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Hey Chris-
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> I believe the JMS 2.0 impl is in good shape (fighting
> > one
> > > > > test
> > > > > >> >>>>> that
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> works-locally-fails-on-Apache-CI fun!). Given the
> desire
> > > to
> > > > > get
> > > > > >> >>>>> 5.17.0 out
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> soon, I can get behind allowing more time for others
> to
> > > > review
> > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > >> >>>>> roll
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> with it in 5.18.0.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> How about keeping AMQ-7309 in 5.17.0 and go forward
> > with
> > > > your
> > > > > >> >>>>> suggestion
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> of moving on to 5.18.0 with JMS 2.0, Jakarta updates,
> > etc?
> > > > > >> >>>>> AMQ-7309 is well
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> reviewed and been merged for 4 months.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Matt
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 2:10 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> In terms of maintenance if we get out 2.18, 2.19,
> etc
> > > then
> > > > > >> >> 2.17
> > > > > >> >>>>> can
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> just
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> get important fixes or be made EOL and we can move
> on.
> > > > Long
> > > > > >> >> lived
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> branches
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> and support are not necessary if we keep up with
> more
> > > > > >> >> frequent
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> releases.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> 2.17.0 is at a logical cut off point where it's at
> now
> > > and
> > > > > >> >> I'm
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> definitely
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> not in favor of adding something brand new (Jakarta
> > > > changes)
> > > > > >> >> last
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> minute
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> and I doubt others are either.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> So again..it's time to move on. As everyone else
> > already
> > > > > >> >> seems
> > > > > >> >>>>> to be in
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> agreement with (JB, Tim, Robbie) let's just do the
> > > release
> > > > > >> >> this
> > > > > >> >>>>> week
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> the current changes and then move on to 2.18.0 with
> > JMS
> > > > 2.0,
> > > > > >> >>>>> Jakarta
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> updates, etc.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:49 PM Matt Pavlovich <
> > > > > >> >>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey All-
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I get the idea that getting a JDK 11-based released
> > is
> > > a
> > > > > >> >> good
> > > > > >> >>>>> thing,
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> but I
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> also think we should consider the jakarta alignment
> > as
> > > > part
> > > > > >> >> of
> > > > > >> >>>>> what
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> active
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> branches are supported. This is the path other
> > projects
> > > > > have
> > > > > >> >>>>> taken and
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> helps users align things when they are assembling
> > > pieces
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> >>>>> their
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> environment
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> If we go with the proposed plan in this thread-- we
> > add
> > > > JDK
> > > > > >> >> 11,
> > > > > >> >>>>> but
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> do not
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> move the ball forward on anything jakarta related —
> > we
> > > > add
> > > > > >> >>>>> another
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> active
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> branch to maintain. As log4j showed us, having a
> > bunch
> > > of
> > > > > >> >> active
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> branches
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> out there is a lot of work when it is time to crank
> > out
> > > > > >> >> security
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> fixes.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, keeping up with Jetty and other
> > > > dependencies
> > > > > >> >> is
> > > > > >> >>>>> going to
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> become more difficult if we do not start taking
> steps
> > > to
> > > > > >> >> align
> > > > > >> >>>>> JDK +
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> jakarta in supported branches.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I also feel that the current status of the JMS 2.0
> > > phased
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> implementation
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> is closer to done than the amount of work to revert
> > > > > >> >> AMQ-7309.
> > > > > >> >>>>> PR-729
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> has
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 200+ test cases and has addressed all feedback as
> of
> > > this
> > > > > >> >>>>> morning.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> JMS 2.0 tested and validated:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - All destinations (queue, topic, temp-topic,
> > > temp-queue)
> > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > >> >>>>> all
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> message
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> types (bytes, map, object, stream, and text)
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - All message property types (bytes, string, int,
> > > float,
> > > > > >> >> double,
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> short,
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> etc.) including min+max data ranges
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Foreign message support
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Range checking on priority and deliveryMode
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Topic Durable Subscriber (JMS v1.x alignment)
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Pavlovich
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 8:16 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> <
> > > > > >> >>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt @Robbie @Tim is it ok for you to have 5.17.0
> > > with
> > > > > >> >>>>> Spring5,
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j2, JDK11 and include JMS2 in 5.18.0 that can
> > > happen
> > > > > >> >>>>> quickly ?
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:09 PM Christopher
> Shannon
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 on moving forward without JMS 2.0 until
> > > 5.18.0.
> > > > > >> >> The
> > > > > >> >>>>> reality
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> there is no consensus to keep it in 5.17.0. There
> are
> > > > > >> >> multiple
> > > > > >> >>>>> people
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> who
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> do not want to include it in 5.17.0 so it's time to
> > > move
> > > > on
> > > > > >> >>>>> without.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> We
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> also need to revert the commits from
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7309 as
> > > there
> > > > is
> > > > > >> >> no
> > > > > >> >>>>> reason
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> include that now.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I say go ahead with the release and vote
> (after
> > > > > >> >> wrapping
> > > > > >> >>>>> things
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> up
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> including reverting that AMQ-7309 JMS 2 stuff).
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty tired of the back and forth and
> fighting
> > > > over
> > > > > >> >>>>> version
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> numbers to be honest and just want to move on. It's
> > not
> > > > > >> >>>>> productive to
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> keep
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> arguing anymore over a version...5.18.0 can
> literally
> > > go
> > > > > out
> > > > > >> >>>>> whenever
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> want.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 8:50 AM Jean-Baptiste
> > Onofré
> > > <
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quick update about 5.17.0 release:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I fixed/squash log4j2 update PR
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/662).
> I
> > > > think
> > > > > >> >> it's
> > > > > >> >>>>> OK
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> (I'm
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting for the end of Jenkins).
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Apache POM 25 update PR
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Spring 5.3.16 update PR
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, ActiveMQ 5.17.0 is almost ready from this
> > > > > standpoint.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I would like to start the vote asap, It would
> > be
> > > > > >> >> great to
> > > > > >> >>>>> act
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> about
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS2. Do you want me to start with different
> > > options ?
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:55 AM Jean-Baptiste
> > > Onofré <
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I worked on the log4j2 update PR this weekend,
> > > fixing
> > > > > >> >>>>> almost all
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> unit
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests using a custom appender. I just have to
> fix
> > > the
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-web-demo test and squash, and the PR
> > will
> > > be
> > > > > >> >> good
> > > > > >> >>>>> to be
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged. I will do that today.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, later today and tomorrow I will work on
> > using
> > > > > >> >> jetty
> > > > > >> >>>>> modules
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of jetty-all and update to Jetty
> 9.4.45.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do a pass on Jira and PRs, especially
> the
> > > ones
> > > > > >> >> from
> > > > > >> >>>>> Matt.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> @Matt
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please ping me on slack to check
> together
> > > the
> > > > > >> >>>>> status of
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs ?
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding this, I would like to submit 5.17.0
> to
> > > vote
> > > > > >> >> this
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> Thursday if
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no objections.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] ActiveMQ 5.17.0 end of this week
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
I created a branch for the 5.17.0 release into activemq-5.17.x and
submitted a PR to set CI run: https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/786
There were a couple of minor conflicts but nothing major to fix.
I bumped the version on the main branch to 5.18.0-SNAPSHOT
If CI is good I think we should be ok to proceed with the release.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 9:38 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> +1
>
> I merged the Jetty PR in the meantime.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:29 PM Christopher Shannon <
> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'll open a PR for revert it
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 8:33 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > About jetty PR, I gonna merge it.
> > >
> > > For AMQ-7309, I guess Matt should revert it, right ?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > JB
> > >
> > > Le mar. 1 mars 2022 à 13:43, Christopher Shannon <
> > > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > >
> > > > Where are we on the release timetable now? Looks like AMQ-7309 still
> > > needs
> > > > to be reverted and the PR is still open for jetty.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon <
> > > > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It's probably fine to change since the uber jar can't be used
> > anymore,
> > > as
> > > > > long as the tests all pass for things like websocket and the web
> > > console
> > > > > fires up of course, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:37 AM Matt Pavlovich <
> mattrpav@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> @JB Let me know if it would be helpful to look at AMQ-7309 revert
> or
> > > > >> other release tasks. I’ll be online and on Slack all day.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > On Feb 28, 2022, at 9:04 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> > > > >> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Good catch Robbie, I forgot about still needing to revert 7309
> to
> > > keep
> > > > >> all
> > > > >> > the JMS 2.0 stuff in 5.18.0
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:56 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > > > >> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> I would say the same things (well, did on the PR). Either way,
> > only
> > > > >> >> other thing to do seems to be creating a branch and reverting
> > 7309.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 14:19, Christopher Shannon
> > > > >> >> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> I will say that we can update the version of Jetty but if you
> > want
> > > > to
> > > > >> >> play
> > > > >> >>> it safe since you are about the cut the release you could keep
> > the
> > > > >> "all"
> > > > >> >>> jar for now and do the dependency changes in 5.18.0
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:01 AM Christopher Shannon <
> > > > >> >>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>>> +1, i've never liked including jetty-all and might as well
> keep
> > > it
> > > > up
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >>>> date with a major release.
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> I think we are good to go , I did a review of a 5.17.0
> snapshot
> > > > build
> > > > >> >> last
> > > > >> >>>> week and things looked good. I will review the official
> release
> > > of
> > > > >> >> course
> > > > >> >>>> but I think we are in good shape.
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:45 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> > > > >> >>>> jeanbaptiste.onofre@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> Hi guys,
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> FYI, I merged log4j2 support on main for 5.17.0.
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> For security reasons and being up to date with Jetty, I
> would
> > > like
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> >>>>> include https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/784
> > > > >> >>>>> Thoughts ?
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> Regarding the release, I think we are good. If there are no
> > > > >> >>>>> objections, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote tonight
> (my
> > > > time).
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> Regards
> > > > >> >>>>> JB
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:51 PM Robbie Gemmell <
> > > > >> >> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>> FWIW it seems like it should be a simple enough revert once
> > the
> > > > >> >> branch
> > > > >> >>>>>> is made. Looks like 3 files (as below) have been changed
> > since
> > > > the
> > > > >> >>>>>> commit in a way that would need a decision upon revert. I
> > guess
> > > > >> >> those
> > > > >> >>>>>> are likely to be keeping the changes from main. Assuming
> so,
> > > > seems
> > > > >> >>>>>> like "git revert 67256c61b -Xours" would work.
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>> Though, perhaps worth looking closer at
> > > > >> >>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml to see
> if
> > > the
> > > > >> >>>>>> change there (and related property restored in the module
> pom
> > > > file)
> > > > >> >> is
> > > > >> >>>>>> needed, it doesnt immediately seem that related to the api
> > > > change.
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>> both modified: activemq-client/pom.xml
> > > > >> >>>>>> both modified:
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> activemq-karaf-itest/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/karaf/itest/ActiveMQBrokerNdCamelFeatureTest.java
> > > > >> >>>>>> both modified:
> > > > >> >> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 16:01, Matt Pavlovich <
> > > mattrpav@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>> ok, lets go
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> > > > >> >>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> Matt, the reason to roll back is for what Robbie just
> said.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> I know the discussion originally was that the first step
> of
> > > > this
> > > > >> >>>>> would be
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> to include the jar with no impl and just UOE. But I've
> > been
> > > > >> >>>>> convinced
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> after all the discussion the past couple weeks on this
> that
> > > > >> >> there's
> > > > >> >>>>> no real
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> point to doing so now because A) you already get the same
> > > > >> >> behavior
> > > > >> >>>>> with
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> including the jar yourself and B) there will be real
> client
> > > > impl
> > > > >> >>>>> changes
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> coming shortly with 5.18.0 it just makes a lot more sense
> > to
> > > me
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >>>>> wait and
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> include everything in 5.18.0.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > > > >> >>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> It really doesnt make sense to include changing the API
> in
> > > > >> >> 5.17.0
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> without any impl, it would be very odd to retain to me,
> > and
> > > > >> >> also
> > > > >> >>>>> quite
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> misleading. It may also unnecessarily inconvenience
> people
> > > > that
> > > > >> >>>>> have
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> previously adapted their builds to other bits including
> a
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> likely-different 2.0 API artifact if they needed it and
> > > > >> >> excluding
> > > > >> >>>>> the
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> 1.1 api, into updating their excludes despite no impl
> > > change.
> > > > >> >> It
> > > > >> >>>>> just
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> makes sense to unwind it.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 14:30, Matt Pavlovich <
> > > > >> >> mattrpav@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Hey Chris-
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> I believe the JMS 2.0 impl is in good shape (fighting
> one
> > > > test
> > > > >> >>>>> that
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> works-locally-fails-on-Apache-CI fun!). Given the desire
> > to
> > > > get
> > > > >> >>>>> 5.17.0 out
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> soon, I can get behind allowing more time for others to
> > > review
> > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> >>>>> roll
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> with it in 5.18.0.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> How about keeping AMQ-7309 in 5.17.0 and go forward
> with
> > > your
> > > > >> >>>>> suggestion
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> of moving on to 5.18.0 with JMS 2.0, Jakarta updates,
> etc?
> > > > >> >>>>> AMQ-7309 is well
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> reviewed and been merged for 4 months.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Matt
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 2:10 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> In terms of maintenance if we get out 2.18, 2.19, etc
> > then
> > > > >> >> 2.17
> > > > >> >>>>> can
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> just
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> get important fixes or be made EOL and we can move on.
> > > Long
> > > > >> >> lived
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> branches
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> and support are not necessary if we keep up with more
> > > > >> >> frequent
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> releases.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> 2.17.0 is at a logical cut off point where it's at now
> > and
> > > > >> >> I'm
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> definitely
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> not in favor of adding something brand new (Jakarta
> > > changes)
> > > > >> >> last
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> minute
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> and I doubt others are either.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> So again..it's time to move on. As everyone else
> already
> > > > >> >> seems
> > > > >> >>>>> to be in
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> agreement with (JB, Tim, Robbie) let's just do the
> > release
> > > > >> >> this
> > > > >> >>>>> week
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> with
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> the current changes and then move on to 2.18.0 with
> JMS
> > > 2.0,
> > > > >> >>>>> Jakarta
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> updates, etc.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:49 PM Matt Pavlovich <
> > > > >> >>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey All-
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I get the idea that getting a JDK 11-based released
> is
> > a
> > > > >> >> good
> > > > >> >>>>> thing,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> but I
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> also think we should consider the jakarta alignment
> as
> > > part
> > > > >> >> of
> > > > >> >>>>> what
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> active
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> branches are supported. This is the path other
> projects
> > > > have
> > > > >> >>>>> taken and
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> helps users align things when they are assembling
> > pieces
> > > > for
> > > > >> >>>>> their
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> environment
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> If we go with the proposed plan in this thread-- we
> add
> > > JDK
> > > > >> >> 11,
> > > > >> >>>>> but
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> do not
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> move the ball forward on anything jakarta related —
> we
> > > add
> > > > >> >>>>> another
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> active
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> branch to maintain. As log4j showed us, having a
> bunch
> > of
> > > > >> >> active
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> branches
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> out there is a lot of work when it is time to crank
> out
> > > > >> >> security
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> fixes.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, keeping up with Jetty and other
> > > dependencies
> > > > >> >> is
> > > > >> >>>>> going to
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> become more difficult if we do not start taking steps
> > to
> > > > >> >> align
> > > > >> >>>>> JDK +
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> jakarta in supported branches.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I also feel that the current status of the JMS 2.0
> > phased
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> implementation
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> is closer to done than the amount of work to revert
> > > > >> >> AMQ-7309.
> > > > >> >>>>> PR-729
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> has
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 200+ test cases and has addressed all feedback as of
> > this
> > > > >> >>>>> morning.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> JMS 2.0 tested and validated:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - All destinations (queue, topic, temp-topic,
> > temp-queue)
> > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> >>>>> all
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> message
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> types (bytes, map, object, stream, and text)
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - All message property types (bytes, string, int,
> > float,
> > > > >> >> double,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> short,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> etc.) including min+max data ranges
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Foreign message support
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Range checking on priority and deliveryMode
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Topic Durable Subscriber (JMS v1.x alignment)
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Pavlovich
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 8:16 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> > > > >> >>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt @Robbie @Tim is it ok for you to have 5.17.0
> > with
> > > > >> >>>>> Spring5,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j2, JDK11 and include JMS2 in 5.18.0 that can
> > happen
> > > > >> >>>>> quickly ?
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:09 PM Christopher Shannon
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 on moving forward without JMS 2.0 until
> > 5.18.0.
> > > > >> >> The
> > > > >> >>>>> reality
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> there is no consensus to keep it in 5.17.0. There are
> > > > >> >> multiple
> > > > >> >>>>> people
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> who
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> do not want to include it in 5.17.0 so it's time to
> > move
> > > on
> > > > >> >>>>> without.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> We
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> also need to revert the commits from
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7309 as
> > there
> > > is
> > > > >> >> no
> > > > >> >>>>> reason
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> include that now.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I say go ahead with the release and vote (after
> > > > >> >> wrapping
> > > > >> >>>>> things
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> up
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> including reverting that AMQ-7309 JMS 2 stuff).
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty tired of the back and forth and fighting
> > > over
> > > > >> >>>>> version
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> numbers to be honest and just want to move on. It's
> not
> > > > >> >>>>> productive to
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> keep
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> arguing anymore over a version...5.18.0 can literally
> > go
> > > > out
> > > > >> >>>>> whenever
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> we
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> want.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 8:50 AM Jean-Baptiste
> Onofré
> > <
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quick update about 5.17.0 release:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I fixed/squash log4j2 update PR
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/662). I
> > > think
> > > > >> >> it's
> > > > >> >>>>> OK
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> (I'm
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting for the end of Jenkins).
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Apache POM 25 update PR
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Spring 5.3.16 update PR
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, ActiveMQ 5.17.0 is almost ready from this
> > > > standpoint.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I would like to start the vote asap, It would
> be
> > > > >> >> great to
> > > > >> >>>>> act
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> about
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS2. Do you want me to start with different
> > options ?
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:55 AM Jean-Baptiste
> > Onofré <
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I worked on the log4j2 update PR this weekend,
> > fixing
> > > > >> >>>>> almost all
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> unit
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests using a custom appender. I just have to fix
> > the
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-web-demo test and squash, and the PR
> will
> > be
> > > > >> >> good
> > > > >> >>>>> to be
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged. I will do that today.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, later today and tomorrow I will work on
> using
> > > > >> >> jetty
> > > > >> >>>>> modules
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of jetty-all and update to Jetty 9.4.45.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do a pass on Jira and PRs, especially the
> > ones
> > > > >> >> from
> > > > >> >>>>> Matt.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> @Matt
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please ping me on slack to check together
> > the
> > > > >> >>>>> status of
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs ?
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding this, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to
> > vote
> > > > >> >> this
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> Thursday if
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no objections.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] ActiveMQ 5.17.0 end of this week
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
+1
I merged the Jetty PR in the meantime.
Regards
JB
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:29 PM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll open a PR for revert it
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 8:33 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > About jetty PR, I gonna merge it.
> >
> > For AMQ-7309, I guess Matt should revert it, right ?
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > Le mar. 1 mars 2022 à 13:43, Christopher Shannon <
> > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > > Where are we on the release timetable now? Looks like AMQ-7309 still
> > needs
> > > to be reverted and the PR is still open for jetty.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon <
> > > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's probably fine to change since the uber jar can't be used
> anymore,
> > as
> > > > long as the tests all pass for things like websocket and the web
> > console
> > > > fires up of course, etc.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:37 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> @JB Let me know if it would be helpful to look at AMQ-7309 revert or
> > > >> other release tasks. I’ll be online and on Slack all day.
> > > >>
> > > >> > On Feb 28, 2022, at 9:04 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> > > >> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Good catch Robbie, I forgot about still needing to revert 7309 to
> > keep
> > > >> all
> > > >> > the JMS 2.0 stuff in 5.18.0
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:56 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > > >> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> I would say the same things (well, did on the PR). Either way,
> only
> > > >> >> other thing to do seems to be creating a branch and reverting
> 7309.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 14:19, Christopher Shannon
> > > >> >> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> I will say that we can update the version of Jetty but if you
> want
> > > to
> > > >> >> play
> > > >> >>> it safe since you are about the cut the release you could keep
> the
> > > >> "all"
> > > >> >>> jar for now and do the dependency changes in 5.18.0
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:01 AM Christopher Shannon <
> > > >> >>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>> +1, i've never liked including jetty-all and might as well keep
> > it
> > > up
> > > >> >> to
> > > >> >>>> date with a major release.
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> I think we are good to go , I did a review of a 5.17.0 snapshot
> > > build
> > > >> >> last
> > > >> >>>> week and things looked good. I will review the official release
> > of
> > > >> >> course
> > > >> >>>> but I think we are in good shape.
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:45 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> > > >> >>>> jeanbaptiste.onofre@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>>> Hi guys,
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>> FYI, I merged log4j2 support on main for 5.17.0.
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>> For security reasons and being up to date with Jetty, I would
> > like
> > > >> to
> > > >> >>>>> include https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/784
> > > >> >>>>> Thoughts ?
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>> Regarding the release, I think we are good. If there are no
> > > >> >>>>> objections, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote tonight (my
> > > time).
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>> Regards
> > > >> >>>>> JB
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:51 PM Robbie Gemmell <
> > > >> >> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>> FWIW it seems like it should be a simple enough revert once
> the
> > > >> >> branch
> > > >> >>>>>> is made. Looks like 3 files (as below) have been changed
> since
> > > the
> > > >> >>>>>> commit in a way that would need a decision upon revert. I
> guess
> > > >> >> those
> > > >> >>>>>> are likely to be keeping the changes from main. Assuming so,
> > > seems
> > > >> >>>>>> like "git revert 67256c61b -Xours" would work.
> > > >> >>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>> Though, perhaps worth looking closer at
> > > >> >>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml to see if
> > the
> > > >> >>>>>> change there (and related property restored in the module pom
> > > file)
> > > >> >> is
> > > >> >>>>>> needed, it doesnt immediately seem that related to the api
> > > change.
> > > >> >>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>> both modified: activemq-client/pom.xml
> > > >> >>>>>> both modified:
> > > >> >>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> activemq-karaf-itest/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/karaf/itest/ActiveMQBrokerNdCamelFeatureTest.java
> > > >> >>>>>> both modified:
> > > >> >> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml
> > > >> >>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 16:01, Matt Pavlovich <
> > mattrpav@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>> ok, lets go
> > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> > > >> >>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>> Matt, the reason to roll back is for what Robbie just said.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>> I know the discussion originally was that the first step of
> > > this
> > > >> >>>>> would be
> > > >> >>>>>>>> to include the jar with no impl and just UOE. But I've
> been
> > > >> >>>>> convinced
> > > >> >>>>>>>> after all the discussion the past couple weeks on this that
> > > >> >> there's
> > > >> >>>>> no real
> > > >> >>>>>>>> point to doing so now because A) you already get the same
> > > >> >> behavior
> > > >> >>>>> with
> > > >> >>>>>>>> including the jar yourself and B) there will be real client
> > > impl
> > > >> >>>>> changes
> > > >> >>>>>>>> coming shortly with 5.18.0 it just makes a lot more sense
> to
> > me
> > > >> >> to
> > > >> >>>>> wait and
> > > >> >>>>>>>> include everything in 5.18.0.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > > >> >>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > > >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> It really doesnt make sense to include changing the API in
> > > >> >> 5.17.0
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> without any impl, it would be very odd to retain to me,
> and
> > > >> >> also
> > > >> >>>>> quite
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> misleading. It may also unnecessarily inconvenience people
> > > that
> > > >> >>>>> have
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> previously adapted their builds to other bits including a
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> likely-different 2.0 API artifact if they needed it and
> > > >> >> excluding
> > > >> >>>>> the
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> 1.1 api, into updating their excludes despite no impl
> > change.
> > > >> >> It
> > > >> >>>>> just
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> makes sense to unwind it.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 14:30, Matt Pavlovich <
> > > >> >> mattrpav@gmail.com>
> > > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Hey Chris-
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> I believe the JMS 2.0 impl is in good shape (fighting one
> > > test
> > > >> >>>>> that
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> works-locally-fails-on-Apache-CI fun!). Given the desire
> to
> > > get
> > > >> >>>>> 5.17.0 out
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> soon, I can get behind allowing more time for others to
> > review
> > > >> >> and
> > > >> >>>>> roll
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> with it in 5.18.0.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> How about keeping AMQ-7309 in 5.17.0 and go forward with
> > your
> > > >> >>>>> suggestion
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> of moving on to 5.18.0 with JMS 2.0, Jakarta updates, etc?
> > > >> >>>>> AMQ-7309 is well
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> reviewed and been merged for 4 months.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Matt
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 2:10 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> In terms of maintenance if we get out 2.18, 2.19, etc
> then
> > > >> >> 2.17
> > > >> >>>>> can
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> just
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> get important fixes or be made EOL and we can move on.
> > Long
> > > >> >> lived
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> branches
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> and support are not necessary if we keep up with more
> > > >> >> frequent
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> releases.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> 2.17.0 is at a logical cut off point where it's at now
> and
> > > >> >> I'm
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> definitely
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> not in favor of adding something brand new (Jakarta
> > changes)
> > > >> >> last
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> minute
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> and I doubt others are either.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> So again..it's time to move on. As everyone else already
> > > >> >> seems
> > > >> >>>>> to be in
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> agreement with (JB, Tim, Robbie) let's just do the
> release
> > > >> >> this
> > > >> >>>>> week
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> with
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> the current changes and then move on to 2.18.0 with JMS
> > 2.0,
> > > >> >>>>> Jakarta
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> updates, etc.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:49 PM Matt Pavlovich <
> > > >> >>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey All-
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I get the idea that getting a JDK 11-based released is
> a
> > > >> >> good
> > > >> >>>>> thing,
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> but I
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> also think we should consider the jakarta alignment as
> > part
> > > >> >> of
> > > >> >>>>> what
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> active
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> branches are supported. This is the path other projects
> > > have
> > > >> >>>>> taken and
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> helps users align things when they are assembling
> pieces
> > > for
> > > >> >>>>> their
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> environment
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> If we go with the proposed plan in this thread-- we add
> > JDK
> > > >> >> 11,
> > > >> >>>>> but
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> do not
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> move the ball forward on anything jakarta related — we
> > add
> > > >> >>>>> another
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> active
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> branch to maintain. As log4j showed us, having a bunch
> of
> > > >> >> active
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> branches
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> out there is a lot of work when it is time to crank out
> > > >> >> security
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> fixes.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, keeping up with Jetty and other
> > dependencies
> > > >> >> is
> > > >> >>>>> going to
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> become more difficult if we do not start taking steps
> to
> > > >> >> align
> > > >> >>>>> JDK +
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> jakarta in supported branches.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I also feel that the current status of the JMS 2.0
> phased
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> implementation
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> is closer to done than the amount of work to revert
> > > >> >> AMQ-7309.
> > > >> >>>>> PR-729
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> has
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 200+ test cases and has addressed all feedback as of
> this
> > > >> >>>>> morning.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> JMS 2.0 tested and validated:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - All destinations (queue, topic, temp-topic,
> temp-queue)
> > > >> >> and
> > > >> >>>>> all
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> message
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> types (bytes, map, object, stream, and text)
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - All message property types (bytes, string, int,
> float,
> > > >> >> double,
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> short,
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> etc.) including min+max data ranges
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Foreign message support
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Range checking on priority and deliveryMode
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Topic Durable Subscriber (JMS v1.x alignment)
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Pavlovich
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 8:16 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> > > >> >>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt @Robbie @Tim is it ok for you to have 5.17.0
> with
> > > >> >>>>> Spring5,
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j2, JDK11 and include JMS2 in 5.18.0 that can
> happen
> > > >> >>>>> quickly ?
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:09 PM Christopher Shannon
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 on moving forward without JMS 2.0 until
> 5.18.0.
> > > >> >> The
> > > >> >>>>> reality
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> is
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> there is no consensus to keep it in 5.17.0. There are
> > > >> >> multiple
> > > >> >>>>> people
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> who
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> do not want to include it in 5.17.0 so it's time to
> move
> > on
> > > >> >>>>> without.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> We
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> also need to revert the commits from
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7309 as
> there
> > is
> > > >> >> no
> > > >> >>>>> reason
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> include that now.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I say go ahead with the release and vote (after
> > > >> >> wrapping
> > > >> >>>>> things
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> up
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> including reverting that AMQ-7309 JMS 2 stuff).
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty tired of the back and forth and fighting
> > over
> > > >> >>>>> version
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> numbers to be honest and just want to move on. It's not
> > > >> >>>>> productive to
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> keep
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> arguing anymore over a version...5.18.0 can literally
> go
> > > out
> > > >> >>>>> whenever
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> we
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> want.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 8:50 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> <
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quick update about 5.17.0 release:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I fixed/squash log4j2 update PR
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/662). I
> > think
> > > >> >> it's
> > > >> >>>>> OK
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> (I'm
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting for the end of Jenkins).
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Apache POM 25 update PR
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Spring 5.3.16 update PR
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, ActiveMQ 5.17.0 is almost ready from this
> > > standpoint.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I would like to start the vote asap, It would be
> > > >> >> great to
> > > >> >>>>> act
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> about
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS2. Do you want me to start with different
> options ?
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:55 AM Jean-Baptiste
> Onofré <
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I worked on the log4j2 update PR this weekend,
> fixing
> > > >> >>>>> almost all
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> unit
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests using a custom appender. I just have to fix
> the
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-web-demo test and squash, and the PR will
> be
> > > >> >> good
> > > >> >>>>> to be
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged. I will do that today.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, later today and tomorrow I will work on using
> > > >> >> jetty
> > > >> >>>>> modules
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of jetty-all and update to Jetty 9.4.45.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do a pass on Jira and PRs, especially the
> ones
> > > >> >> from
> > > >> >>>>> Matt.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> @Matt
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please ping me on slack to check together
> the
> > > >> >>>>> status of
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> the
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs ?
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding this, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to
> vote
> > > >> >> this
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> Thursday if
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no objections.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] ActiveMQ 5.17.0 end of this week
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
I'll open a PR for revert it
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 8:33 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> Hi
>
> About jetty PR, I gonna merge it.
>
> For AMQ-7309, I guess Matt should revert it, right ?
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> Le mar. 1 mars 2022 à 13:43, Christopher Shannon <
> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> > Where are we on the release timetable now? Looks like AMQ-7309 still
> needs
> > to be reverted and the PR is still open for jetty.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon <
> > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It's probably fine to change since the uber jar can't be used anymore,
> as
> > > long as the tests all pass for things like websocket and the web
> console
> > > fires up of course, etc.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:37 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> @JB Let me know if it would be helpful to look at AMQ-7309 revert or
> > >> other release tasks. I’ll be online and on Slack all day.
> > >>
> > >> > On Feb 28, 2022, at 9:04 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> > >> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Good catch Robbie, I forgot about still needing to revert 7309 to
> keep
> > >> all
> > >> > the JMS 2.0 stuff in 5.18.0
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:56 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > >> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> I would say the same things (well, did on the PR). Either way, only
> > >> >> other thing to do seems to be creating a branch and reverting 7309.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 14:19, Christopher Shannon
> > >> >> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I will say that we can update the version of Jetty but if you want
> > to
> > >> >> play
> > >> >>> it safe since you are about the cut the release you could keep the
> > >> "all"
> > >> >>> jar for now and do the dependency changes in 5.18.0
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:01 AM Christopher Shannon <
> > >> >>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>> +1, i've never liked including jetty-all and might as well keep
> it
> > up
> > >> >> to
> > >> >>>> date with a major release.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I think we are good to go , I did a review of a 5.17.0 snapshot
> > build
> > >> >> last
> > >> >>>> week and things looked good. I will review the official release
> of
> > >> >> course
> > >> >>>> but I think we are in good shape.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:45 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> > >> >>>> jeanbaptiste.onofre@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>> Hi guys,
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> FYI, I merged log4j2 support on main for 5.17.0.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> For security reasons and being up to date with Jetty, I would
> like
> > >> to
> > >> >>>>> include https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/784
> > >> >>>>> Thoughts ?
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Regarding the release, I think we are good. If there are no
> > >> >>>>> objections, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote tonight (my
> > time).
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Regards
> > >> >>>>> JB
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:51 PM Robbie Gemmell <
> > >> >> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> FWIW it seems like it should be a simple enough revert once the
> > >> >> branch
> > >> >>>>>> is made. Looks like 3 files (as below) have been changed since
> > the
> > >> >>>>>> commit in a way that would need a decision upon revert. I guess
> > >> >> those
> > >> >>>>>> are likely to be keeping the changes from main. Assuming so,
> > seems
> > >> >>>>>> like "git revert 67256c61b -Xours" would work.
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> Though, perhaps worth looking closer at
> > >> >>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml to see if
> the
> > >> >>>>>> change there (and related property restored in the module pom
> > file)
> > >> >> is
> > >> >>>>>> needed, it doesnt immediately seem that related to the api
> > change.
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> both modified: activemq-client/pom.xml
> > >> >>>>>> both modified:
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> activemq-karaf-itest/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/karaf/itest/ActiveMQBrokerNdCamelFeatureTest.java
> > >> >>>>>> both modified:
> > >> >> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 16:01, Matt Pavlovich <
> mattrpav@gmail.com
> > >
> > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> ok, lets go
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> > >> >>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> Matt, the reason to roll back is for what Robbie just said.
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> I know the discussion originally was that the first step of
> > this
> > >> >>>>> would be
> > >> >>>>>>>> to include the jar with no impl and just UOE. But I've been
> > >> >>>>> convinced
> > >> >>>>>>>> after all the discussion the past couple weeks on this that
> > >> >> there's
> > >> >>>>> no real
> > >> >>>>>>>> point to doing so now because A) you already get the same
> > >> >> behavior
> > >> >>>>> with
> > >> >>>>>>>> including the jar yourself and B) there will be real client
> > impl
> > >> >>>>> changes
> > >> >>>>>>>> coming shortly with 5.18.0 it just makes a lot more sense to
> me
> > >> >> to
> > >> >>>>> wait and
> > >> >>>>>>>> include everything in 5.18.0.
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > >> >>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>> It really doesnt make sense to include changing the API in
> > >> >> 5.17.0
> > >> >>>>>>>>> without any impl, it would be very odd to retain to me, and
> > >> >> also
> > >> >>>>> quite
> > >> >>>>>>>>> misleading. It may also unnecessarily inconvenience people
> > that
> > >> >>>>> have
> > >> >>>>>>>>> previously adapted their builds to other bits including a
> > >> >>>>>>>>> likely-different 2.0 API artifact if they needed it and
> > >> >> excluding
> > >> >>>>> the
> > >> >>>>>>>>> 1.1 api, into updating their excludes despite no impl
> change.
> > >> >> It
> > >> >>>>> just
> > >> >>>>>>>>> makes sense to unwind it.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 14:30, Matt Pavlovich <
> > >> >> mattrpav@gmail.com>
> > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Hey Chris-
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> I believe the JMS 2.0 impl is in good shape (fighting one
> > test
> > >> >>>>> that
> > >> >>>>>>>>> works-locally-fails-on-Apache-CI fun!). Given the desire to
> > get
> > >> >>>>> 5.17.0 out
> > >> >>>>>>>>> soon, I can get behind allowing more time for others to
> review
> > >> >> and
> > >> >>>>> roll
> > >> >>>>>>>>> with it in 5.18.0.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> How about keeping AMQ-7309 in 5.17.0 and go forward with
> your
> > >> >>>>> suggestion
> > >> >>>>>>>>> of moving on to 5.18.0 with JMS 2.0, Jakarta updates, etc?
> > >> >>>>> AMQ-7309 is well
> > >> >>>>>>>>> reviewed and been merged for 4 months.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Matt
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 2:10 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> > >> >>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> In terms of maintenance if we get out 2.18, 2.19, etc then
> > >> >> 2.17
> > >> >>>>> can
> > >> >>>>>>>>> just
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> get important fixes or be made EOL and we can move on.
> Long
> > >> >> lived
> > >> >>>>>>>>> branches
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> and support are not necessary if we keep up with more
> > >> >> frequent
> > >> >>>>>>>>> releases.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> 2.17.0 is at a logical cut off point where it's at now and
> > >> >> I'm
> > >> >>>>>>>>> definitely
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> not in favor of adding something brand new (Jakarta
> changes)
> > >> >> last
> > >> >>>>>>>>> minute
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> and I doubt others are either.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> So again..it's time to move on. As everyone else already
> > >> >> seems
> > >> >>>>> to be in
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> agreement with (JB, Tim, Robbie) let's just do the release
> > >> >> this
> > >> >>>>> week
> > >> >>>>>>>>> with
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> the current changes and then move on to 2.18.0 with JMS
> 2.0,
> > >> >>>>> Jakarta
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> updates, etc.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:49 PM Matt Pavlovich <
> > >> >>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
> > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey All-
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I get the idea that getting a JDK 11-based released is a
> > >> >> good
> > >> >>>>> thing,
> > >> >>>>>>>>> but I
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> also think we should consider the jakarta alignment as
> part
> > >> >> of
> > >> >>>>> what
> > >> >>>>>>>>> active
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> branches are supported. This is the path other projects
> > have
> > >> >>>>> taken and
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> helps users align things when they are assembling pieces
> > for
> > >> >>>>> their
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> environment
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> If we go with the proposed plan in this thread-- we add
> JDK
> > >> >> 11,
> > >> >>>>> but
> > >> >>>>>>>>> do not
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> move the ball forward on anything jakarta related — we
> add
> > >> >>>>> another
> > >> >>>>>>>>> active
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> branch to maintain. As log4j showed us, having a bunch of
> > >> >> active
> > >> >>>>>>>>> branches
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> out there is a lot of work when it is time to crank out
> > >> >> security
> > >> >>>>>>>>> fixes.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, keeping up with Jetty and other
> dependencies
> > >> >> is
> > >> >>>>> going to
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> become more difficult if we do not start taking steps to
> > >> >> align
> > >> >>>>> JDK +
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> jakarta in supported branches.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I also feel that the current status of the JMS 2.0 phased
> > >> >>>>>>>>> implementation
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> is closer to done than the amount of work to revert
> > >> >> AMQ-7309.
> > >> >>>>> PR-729
> > >> >>>>>>>>> has
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 200+ test cases and has addressed all feedback as of this
> > >> >>>>> morning.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> JMS 2.0 tested and validated:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - All destinations (queue, topic, temp-topic, temp-queue)
> > >> >> and
> > >> >>>>> all
> > >> >>>>>>>>> message
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> types (bytes, map, object, stream, and text)
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - All message property types (bytes, string, int, float,
> > >> >> double,
> > >> >>>>>>>>> short,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> etc.) including min+max data ranges
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Foreign message support
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Range checking on priority and deliveryMode
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Topic Durable Subscriber (JMS v1.x alignment)
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Pavlovich
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 8:16 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> > >> >>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt @Robbie @Tim is it ok for you to have 5.17.0 with
> > >> >>>>> Spring5,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j2, JDK11 and include JMS2 in 5.18.0 that can happen
> > >> >>>>> quickly ?
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:09 PM Christopher Shannon
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 on moving forward without JMS 2.0 until 5.18.0.
> > >> >> The
> > >> >>>>> reality
> > >> >>>>>>>>> is
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> there is no consensus to keep it in 5.17.0. There are
> > >> >> multiple
> > >> >>>>> people
> > >> >>>>>>>>> who
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> do not want to include it in 5.17.0 so it's time to move
> on
> > >> >>>>> without.
> > >> >>>>>>>>> We
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> also need to revert the commits from
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7309 as there
> is
> > >> >> no
> > >> >>>>> reason
> > >> >>>>>>>>> to
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> include that now.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I say go ahead with the release and vote (after
> > >> >> wrapping
> > >> >>>>> things
> > >> >>>>>>>>> up
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> including reverting that AMQ-7309 JMS 2 stuff).
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty tired of the back and forth and fighting
> over
> > >> >>>>> version
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> numbers to be honest and just want to move on. It's not
> > >> >>>>> productive to
> > >> >>>>>>>>> keep
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> arguing anymore over a version...5.18.0 can literally go
> > out
> > >> >>>>> whenever
> > >> >>>>>>>>> we
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> want.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 8:50 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> > >> >>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quick update about 5.17.0 release:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I fixed/squash log4j2 update PR
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/662). I
> think
> > >> >> it's
> > >> >>>>> OK
> > >> >>>>>>>>> (I'm
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting for the end of Jenkins).
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Apache POM 25 update PR
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Spring 5.3.16 update PR
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, ActiveMQ 5.17.0 is almost ready from this
> > standpoint.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I would like to start the vote asap, It would be
> > >> >> great to
> > >> >>>>> act
> > >> >>>>>>>>> about
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS2. Do you want me to start with different options ?
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:55 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> > >> >>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I worked on the log4j2 update PR this weekend, fixing
> > >> >>>>> almost all
> > >> >>>>>>>>> unit
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests using a custom appender. I just have to fix the
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-web-demo test and squash, and the PR will be
> > >> >> good
> > >> >>>>> to be
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged. I will do that today.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, later today and tomorrow I will work on using
> > >> >> jetty
> > >> >>>>> modules
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of jetty-all and update to Jetty 9.4.45.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do a pass on Jira and PRs, especially the ones
> > >> >> from
> > >> >>>>> Matt.
> > >> >>>>>>>>> @Matt
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please ping me on slack to check together the
> > >> >>>>> status of
> > >> >>>>>>>>> the
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs ?
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding this, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote
> > >> >> this
> > >> >>>>>>>>> Thursday if
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no objections.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] ActiveMQ 5.17.0 end of this week
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
Good point Matt, based on Matt’s points I’m back to putting it into 2.18.0
as I agree we should probably pick back up the discussion. Due to alerting
and log parsing he makes a very good point that we should be sure of the
changes so we don't change it again and I don't want to rush it into 2.17.0
at this point. It's been on hold for a while so it doesn't hurt to
target it for 2.18.0
In regards to “approval” (because you've brought it up several times
now)...that's just one person who approved the changes but the PMC runs the
project and not just one member. Approval of code changes comes from the
PMC as a whole any PMC member can veto code changes if not in agreement.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:31 PM Étienne Hossack <ac...@hossack.me> wrote:
> For a brief recap, the conversation moved to confirm:
> * Artemis and ActiveMQ are distinct brokers and trying to align terms
> across them all was challenging
> * A best-effort approach would be to do as you described below
>
> However, the PRs do simply use that high-level terminology, and leave it
> open for us to refactor in the future to having that ideal
> persistence-layer meaning be done (remember, frequent releases means we can
> finalize that approach when we're ready!)
>
> Given the aforementioned PRs and given the clear path forward with regards
> to simply adding notes in the release notes, I re-raised the changes into
> one PR: https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788
>
> FWIW, I get that consensus is hard with nomenclature, but it really
> reflects poorly on a community when there's a large amount of resistance or
> a lack of support in moving forward with work around inclusivity and the
> role of language in systems of oppression.
>
> All this said, we can continue detailed discussions in another thread. For
> the purposes of "Intent to release 5.17.0" - I merely would like to
> highlight work that had previously targeted and been approved for this
> release.
>
> --
> Étienne
>
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, at 12:16 PM, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> > The discussion veered and never came back to a consensus. The original
> > conversation was trying to normalize terms for role and status—
> > however, as I dug in it becomes complicated as various storage backends
> > have their own terms. The “ah-hah” moment was the idea we should just
> > have a simple “on | off”, “active | standby” state indicator for the
> > broker and delegate any further meaning down to the persistence layer—
> > “replica”, “failover”, “primary”, etc.
> >
> > That convo hasn’t continued since last summer, so we should probably
> > pick it back up.
> >
> > As an original proponent of the config flag, but I’m also leaning more
> > towards let’s not add the config flag and just move forward with the
> > changes.
> >
> > My $0.02— I know it seems mundane to change log messages, but folks
> > really do wire up to those for alerts an things. Before we break it
> > with change, it’d be good to be fairly certain we are not going to
> > change it twice.
> >
> > I think we should target this for 5.18.0, given the recent build fixes
> > we need to tackle to try to get 5.17.0 done. This would give us time to
> > try to get consensus around what ’term’ goes in the log message..
> >
> > -Matt Pavlovich
> >
> >> On Mar 1, 2022, at 1:47 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Looking at it more I think that in this particular case it's not a big
> risk
> >> to include since it's just logging so it's probably fine. But as I said
> I
> >> find very little value in having a toggle mode so I would be a -1 to
> >> include in the current form and think the toggle mode should be removed.
> >> That will make the change even simpler. If you want to update and
> rebase we
> >> can get it merged.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:53 PM Étienne Hossack <ac...@hossack.me>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Not that I disagree we should be moving to faster releases, but they've
> >>> been sitting approved for months now ready to merge, so I think it's
> >>> reasonable to request they make it in this release. (the base PR was
> >>> simplified according to comments and never revisited)
> >>>
> >>> It's also really trivial for me to change that PR to remove the toggle
> and
> >>> happy to do so, but as it stands, the PRs were approved.
> >>>
> >>> (FWIW I've also let JB know off this mailing list, just wanting to
> raise
> >>> visibility of that discussion now)
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Étienne
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, at 10:47 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
> >>>> I don't really like the toggle option. I think it just overly
> complicates
> >>>> it for no reason. I think you either change it or don't so I think it
> >>> makes
> >>>> sense to skip it for 5.17 as we are trying to finalize the release and
> >>> then
> >>>> target it for 5.18.0 and make the changes without any flags. We
> should be
> >>>> going to a faster release process so I wouldn't expect it to take too
> >>> long.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:33 PM Étienne Hossack <ac...@hossack.me>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hey all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There's been a few PRs open for
> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514 (specifically
> AMQ-8317)
> >>>>> that have not had traction in a while. I can rebase/re-open them,
> but it
> >>>>> would be good to get the ball rolling on these in an earlier release
> so
> >>>>> that the removal can happen in a subsequent release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They originally targeted 5.17.0 and I'd like to still target that
> >>> version.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course it was suggested from JB that we don't take the toggle
> >>> approach
> >>>>> of AMQ-8317 simply change the logging, but regardless of the approach
> >>> I'd
> >>>>> appreciate the approved PRs not to simply hang there :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> Étienne
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, at 7:01 AM, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> >>>>>> @jb- no problem. I’ll ping you on slack to coordinate the revert.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2022, at 7:32 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> About jetty PR, I gonna merge it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For AMQ-7309, I guess Matt should revert it, right ?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>> JB
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Le mar. 1 mars 2022 à 13:43, Christopher Shannon <
> >>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Where are we on the release timetable now? Looks like AMQ-7309
> still
> >>>>> needs
> >>>>>>>> to be reverted and the PR is still open for jetty.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon <
> >>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It's probably fine to change since the uber jar can't be used
> >>>>> anymore, as
> >>>>>>>>> long as the tests all pass for things like websocket and the web
> >>>>> console
> >>>>>>>>> fires up of course, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:37 AM Matt Pavlovich <
> >>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> @JB Let me know if it would be helpful to look at AMQ-7309
> revert
> >>> or
> >>>>>>>>>> other release tasks. I’ll be online and on Slack all day.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 28, 2022, at 9:04 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> >>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Good catch Robbie, I forgot about still needing to revert 7309
> to
> >>>>> keep
> >>>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>> the JMS 2.0 stuff in 5.18.0
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:56 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> >>>>>>>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I would say the same things (well, did on the PR). Either way,
> >>> only
> >>>>>>>>>>>> other thing to do seems to be creating a branch and reverting
> >>> 7309.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 14:19, Christopher Shannon
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I will say that we can update the version of Jetty but if you
> >>> want
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> play
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it safe since you are about the cut the release you could
> keep
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> "all"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> jar for now and do the dependency changes in 5.18.0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:01 AM Christopher Shannon <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, i've never liked including jetty-all and might as well
> >>> keep
> >>>>> it
> >>>>>>>> up
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> date with a major release.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we are good to go , I did a review of a 5.17.0
> >>> snapshot
> >>>>>>>> build
> >>>>>>>>>>>> last
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> week and things looked good. I will review the official
> >>> release
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> course
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think we are in good shape.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:45 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jeanbaptiste.onofre@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FYI, I merged log4j2 support on main for 5.17.0.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For security reasons and being up to date with Jetty, I
> would
> >>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/784
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the release, I think we are good. If there are no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objections, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote tonight
> (my
> >>>>>>>> time).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:51 PM Robbie Gemmell <
> >>>>>>>>>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW it seems like it should be a simple enough revert
> once
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is made. Looks like 3 files (as below) have been changed
> >>> since
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit in a way that would need a decision upon revert. I
> >>> guess
> >>>>>>>>>>>> those
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are likely to be keeping the changes from main. Assuming
> so,
> >>>>>>>> seems
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like "git revert 67256c61b -Xours" would work.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though, perhaps worth looking closer at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml to see
> >>> if
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change there (and related property restored in the module
> >>> pom
> >>>>>>>> file)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed, it doesnt immediately seem that related to the api
> >>>>>>>> change.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both modified: activemq-client/pom.xml
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both modified:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> activemq-karaf-itest/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/karaf/itest/ActiveMQBrokerNdCamelFeatureTest.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both modified:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 16:01, Matt Pavlovich <
> >>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok, lets go
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt, the reason to roll back is for what Robbie just
> >>> said.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know the discussion originally was that the first step
> >>> of
> >>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to include the jar with no impl and just UOE. But I've
> >>> been
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convinced
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after all the discussion the past couple weeks on this
> >>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> there's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no real
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point to doing so now because A) you already get the
> same
> >>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including the jar yourself and B) there will be real
> >>> client
> >>>>>>>> impl
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coming shortly with 5.18.0 it just makes a lot more
> sense
> >>> to
> >>>>> me
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include everything in 5.18.0.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It really doesnt make sense to include changing the API
> >>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 5.17.0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without any impl, it would be very odd to retain to me,
> >>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misleading. It may also unnecessarily inconvenience
> >>> people
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously adapted their builds to other bits
> including a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely-different 2.0 API artifact if they needed it and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> excluding
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1 api, into updating their excludes despite no impl
> >>>>> change.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes sense to unwind it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 14:30, Matt Pavlovich <
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chris-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe the JMS 2.0 impl is in good shape (fighting
> >>> one
> >>>>>>>> test
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works-locally-fails-on-Apache-CI fun!). Given the
> desire
> >>> to
> >>>>>>>> get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.17.0 out
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon, I can get behind allowing more time for others to
> >>>>> review
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roll
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it in 5.18.0.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about keeping AMQ-7309 in 5.17.0 and go forward
> with
> >>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of moving on to 5.18.0 with JMS 2.0, Jakarta updates,
> >>> etc?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AMQ-7309 is well
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed and been merged for 4 months.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 2:10 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of maintenance if we get out 2.18, 2.19, etc
> >>> then
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2.17
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get important fixes or be made EOL and we can move
> on.
> >>>>> Long
> >>>>>>>>>>>> lived
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and support are not necessary if we keep up with more
> >>>>>>>>>>>> frequent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.17.0 is at a logical cut off point where it's at
> now
> >>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in favor of adding something brand new (Jakarta
> >>>>> changes)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> last
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minute
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I doubt others are either.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So again..it's time to move on. As everyone else
> >>> already
> >>>>>>>>>>>> seems
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement with (JB, Tim, Robbie) let's just do the
> >>> release
> >>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current changes and then move on to 2.18.0 with
> JMS
> >>>>> 2.0,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jakarta
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updates, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:49 PM Matt Pavlovich <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey All-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get the idea that getting a JDK 11-based released
> >>> is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> good
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also think we should consider the jakarta alignment
> as
> >>>>> part
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> active
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches are supported. This is the path other
> >>> projects
> >>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helps users align things when they are assembling
> >>> pieces
> >>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we go with the proposed plan in this thread-- we
> >>> add
> >>>>> JDK
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 11,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move the ball forward on anything jakarta related —
> we
> >>>>> add
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> active
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch to maintain. As log4j showed us, having a
> >>> bunch of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> active
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out there is a lot of work when it is time to crank
> >>> out
> >>>>>>>>>>>> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, keeping up with Jetty and other
> >>>>> dependencies
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become more difficult if we do not start taking
> steps
> >>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> align
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK +
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jakarta in supported branches.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also feel that the current status of the JMS 2.0
> >>> phased
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is closer to done than the amount of work to revert
> >>>>>>>>>>>> AMQ-7309.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR-729
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 200+ test cases and has addressed all feedback as of
> >>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> morning.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS 2.0 tested and validated:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - All destinations (queue, topic, temp-topic,
> >>> temp-queue)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types (bytes, map, object, stream, and text)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - All message property types (bytes, string, int,
> >>> float,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> double,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.) including min+max data ranges
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Foreign message support
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Range checking on priority and deliveryMode
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Topic Durable Subscriber (JMS v1.x alignment)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Pavlovich
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 8:16 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt @Robbie @Tim is it ok for you to have 5.17.0
> >>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spring5,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j2, JDK11 and include JMS2 in 5.18.0 that can
> >>> happen
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quickly ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:09 PM Christopher Shannon
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 on moving forward without JMS 2.0 until
> >>> 5.18.0.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no consensus to keep it in 5.17.0. There
> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>> multiple
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not want to include it in 5.17.0 so it's time to
> >>> move
> >>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also need to revert the commits from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7309 as
> >>> there
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include that now.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I say go ahead with the release and vote (after
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrapping
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including reverting that AMQ-7309 JMS 2 stuff).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty tired of the back and forth and
> fighting
> >>>>> over
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers to be honest and just want to move on. It's
> >>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> productive to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguing anymore over a version...5.18.0 can
> literally
> >>> go
> >>>>>>>> out
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whenever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 8:50 AM Jean-Baptiste
> >>> Onofré <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quick update about 5.17.0 release:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I fixed/squash log4j2 update PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/662). I
> >>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting for the end of Jenkins).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Apache POM 25 update PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Spring 5.3.16 update PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, ActiveMQ 5.17.0 is almost ready from this
> >>>>>>>> standpoint.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I would like to start the vote asap, It would
> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> great to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> act
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS2. Do you want me to start with different
> >>> options ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:55 AM Jean-Baptiste
> >>> Onofré <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I worked on the log4j2 update PR this weekend,
> >>> fixing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unit
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests using a custom appender. I just have to
> fix
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-web-demo test and squash, and the PR
> >>> will be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> good
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged. I will do that today.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, later today and tomorrow I will work on
> >>> using
> >>>>>>>>>>>> jetty
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of jetty-all and update to Jetty 9.4.45.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do a pass on Jira and PRs, especially the
> >>> ones
> >>>>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please ping me on slack to check
> together
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding this, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to
> >>> vote
> >>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thursday if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no objections.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] ActiveMQ 5.17.0 end of this week
Posted by Étienne Hossack <ac...@hossack.me>.
For a brief recap, the conversation moved to confirm:
* Artemis and ActiveMQ are distinct brokers and trying to align terms across them all was challenging
* A best-effort approach would be to do as you described below
However, the PRs do simply use that high-level terminology, and leave it open for us to refactor in the future to having that ideal persistence-layer meaning be done (remember, frequent releases means we can finalize that approach when we're ready!)
Given the aforementioned PRs and given the clear path forward with regards to simply adding notes in the release notes, I re-raised the changes into one PR: https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788
FWIW, I get that consensus is hard with nomenclature, but it really reflects poorly on a community when there's a large amount of resistance or a lack of support in moving forward with work around inclusivity and the role of language in systems of oppression.
All this said, we can continue detailed discussions in another thread. For the purposes of "Intent to release 5.17.0" - I merely would like to highlight work that had previously targeted and been approved for this release.
--
Étienne
On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, at 12:16 PM, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> The discussion veered and never came back to a consensus. The original
> conversation was trying to normalize terms for role and status—
> however, as I dug in it becomes complicated as various storage backends
> have their own terms. The “ah-hah” moment was the idea we should just
> have a simple “on | off”, “active | standby” state indicator for the
> broker and delegate any further meaning down to the persistence layer—
> “replica”, “failover”, “primary”, etc.
>
> That convo hasn’t continued since last summer, so we should probably
> pick it back up.
>
> As an original proponent of the config flag, but I’m also leaning more
> towards let’s not add the config flag and just move forward with the
> changes.
>
> My $0.02— I know it seems mundane to change log messages, but folks
> really do wire up to those for alerts an things. Before we break it
> with change, it’d be good to be fairly certain we are not going to
> change it twice.
>
> I think we should target this for 5.18.0, given the recent build fixes
> we need to tackle to try to get 5.17.0 done. This would give us time to
> try to get consensus around what ’term’ goes in the log message..
>
> -Matt Pavlovich
>
>> On Mar 1, 2022, at 1:47 PM, Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Looking at it more I think that in this particular case it's not a big risk
>> to include since it's just logging so it's probably fine. But as I said I
>> find very little value in having a toggle mode so I would be a -1 to
>> include in the current form and think the toggle mode should be removed.
>> That will make the change even simpler. If you want to update and rebase we
>> can get it merged.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:53 PM Étienne Hossack <ac...@hossack.me> wrote:
>>
>>> Not that I disagree we should be moving to faster releases, but they've
>>> been sitting approved for months now ready to merge, so I think it's
>>> reasonable to request they make it in this release. (the base PR was
>>> simplified according to comments and never revisited)
>>>
>>> It's also really trivial for me to change that PR to remove the toggle and
>>> happy to do so, but as it stands, the PRs were approved.
>>>
>>> (FWIW I've also let JB know off this mailing list, just wanting to raise
>>> visibility of that discussion now)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Étienne
>>>
>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, at 10:47 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
>>>> I don't really like the toggle option. I think it just overly complicates
>>>> it for no reason. I think you either change it or don't so I think it
>>> makes
>>>> sense to skip it for 5.17 as we are trying to finalize the release and
>>> then
>>>> target it for 5.18.0 and make the changes without any flags. We should be
>>>> going to a faster release process so I wouldn't expect it to take too
>>> long.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:33 PM Étienne Hossack <ac...@hossack.me>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>
>>>>> There's been a few PRs open for
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514 (specifically AMQ-8317)
>>>>> that have not had traction in a while. I can rebase/re-open them, but it
>>>>> would be good to get the ball rolling on these in an earlier release so
>>>>> that the removal can happen in a subsequent release.
>>>>>
>>>>> They originally targeted 5.17.0 and I'd like to still target that
>>> version.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it was suggested from JB that we don't take the toggle
>>> approach
>>>>> of AMQ-8317 simply change the logging, but regardless of the approach
>>> I'd
>>>>> appreciate the approved PRs not to simply hang there :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Étienne
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, at 7:01 AM, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>>>>>> @jb- no problem. I’ll ping you on slack to coordinate the revert.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2022, at 7:32 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> About jetty PR, I gonna merge it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For AMQ-7309, I guess Matt should revert it, right ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le mar. 1 mars 2022 à 13:43, Christopher Shannon <
>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where are we on the release timetable now? Looks like AMQ-7309 still
>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>> to be reverted and the PR is still open for jetty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon <
>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's probably fine to change since the uber jar can't be used
>>>>> anymore, as
>>>>>>>>> long as the tests all pass for things like websocket and the web
>>>>> console
>>>>>>>>> fires up of course, etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:37 AM Matt Pavlovich <
>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> @JB Let me know if it would be helpful to look at AMQ-7309 revert
>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> other release tasks. I’ll be online and on Slack all day.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 28, 2022, at 9:04 AM, Christopher Shannon <
>>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Good catch Robbie, I forgot about still needing to revert 7309 to
>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> the JMS 2.0 stuff in 5.18.0
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:56 AM Robbie Gemmell <
>>>>>>>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would say the same things (well, did on the PR). Either way,
>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>> other thing to do seems to be creating a branch and reverting
>>> 7309.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 14:19, Christopher Shannon
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will say that we can update the version of Jetty but if you
>>> want
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> play
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it safe since you are about the cut the release you could keep
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> "all"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar for now and do the dependency changes in 5.18.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:01 AM Christopher Shannon <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, i've never liked including jetty-all and might as well
>>> keep
>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> date with a major release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we are good to go , I did a review of a 5.17.0
>>> snapshot
>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week and things looked good. I will review the official
>>> release
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> course
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think we are in good shape.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:45 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jeanbaptiste.onofre@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FYI, I merged log4j2 support on main for 5.17.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For security reasons and being up to date with Jetty, I would
>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/784
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the release, I think we are good. If there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objections, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote tonight (my
>>>>>>>> time).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:51 PM Robbie Gemmell <
>>>>>>>>>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW it seems like it should be a simple enough revert once
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is made. Looks like 3 files (as below) have been changed
>>> since
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit in a way that would need a decision upon revert. I
>>> guess
>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are likely to be keeping the changes from main. Assuming so,
>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like "git revert 67256c61b -Xours" would work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though, perhaps worth looking closer at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml to see
>>> if
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change there (and related property restored in the module
>>> pom
>>>>>>>> file)
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed, it doesnt immediately seem that related to the api
>>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both modified: activemq-client/pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> activemq-karaf-itest/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/karaf/itest/ActiveMQBrokerNdCamelFeatureTest.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 16:01, Matt Pavlovich <
>>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok, lets go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Christopher Shannon <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt, the reason to roll back is for what Robbie just
>>> said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know the discussion originally was that the first step
>>> of
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to include the jar with no impl and just UOE. But I've
>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convinced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after all the discussion the past couple weeks on this
>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> there's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no real
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point to doing so now because A) you already get the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including the jar yourself and B) there will be real
>>> client
>>>>>>>> impl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coming shortly with 5.18.0 it just makes a lot more sense
>>> to
>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include everything in 5.18.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM Robbie Gemmell <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It really doesnt make sense to include changing the API
>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.17.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without any impl, it would be very odd to retain to me,
>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misleading. It may also unnecessarily inconvenience
>>> people
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously adapted their builds to other bits including a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely-different 2.0 API artifact if they needed it and
>>>>>>>>>>>> excluding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1 api, into updating their excludes despite no impl
>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes sense to unwind it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 14:30, Matt Pavlovich <
>>>>>>>>>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chris-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe the JMS 2.0 impl is in good shape (fighting
>>> one
>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works-locally-fails-on-Apache-CI fun!). Given the desire
>>> to
>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.17.0 out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon, I can get behind allowing more time for others to
>>>>> review
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it in 5.18.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about keeping AMQ-7309 in 5.17.0 and go forward with
>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of moving on to 5.18.0 with JMS 2.0, Jakarta updates,
>>> etc?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AMQ-7309 is well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed and been merged for 4 months.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 2:10 PM, Christopher Shannon <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of maintenance if we get out 2.18, 2.19, etc
>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.17
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get important fixes or be made EOL and we can move on.
>>>>> Long
>>>>>>>>>>>> lived
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and support are not necessary if we keep up with more
>>>>>>>>>>>> frequent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.17.0 is at a logical cut off point where it's at now
>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in favor of adding something brand new (Jakarta
>>>>> changes)
>>>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I doubt others are either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So again..it's time to move on. As everyone else
>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement with (JB, Tim, Robbie) let's just do the
>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current changes and then move on to 2.18.0 with JMS
>>>>> 2.0,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jakarta
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updates, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:49 PM Matt Pavlovich <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey All-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get the idea that getting a JDK 11-based released
>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also think we should consider the jakarta alignment as
>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches are supported. This is the path other
>>> projects
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helps users align things when they are assembling
>>> pieces
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we go with the proposed plan in this thread-- we
>>> add
>>>>> JDK
>>>>>>>>>>>> 11,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move the ball forward on anything jakarta related — we
>>>>> add
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch to maintain. As log4j showed us, having a
>>> bunch of
>>>>>>>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out there is a lot of work when it is time to crank
>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, keeping up with Jetty and other
>>>>> dependencies
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become more difficult if we do not start taking steps
>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> align
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jakarta in supported branches.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also feel that the current status of the JMS 2.0
>>> phased
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is closer to done than the amount of work to revert
>>>>>>>>>>>> AMQ-7309.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR-729
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 200+ test cases and has addressed all feedback as of
>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> morning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS 2.0 tested and validated:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - All destinations (queue, topic, temp-topic,
>>> temp-queue)
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types (bytes, map, object, stream, and text)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - All message property types (bytes, string, int,
>>> float,
>>>>>>>>>>>> double,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.) including min+max data ranges
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Foreign message support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Range checking on priority and deliveryMode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Topic Durable Subscriber (JMS v1.x alignment)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Pavlovich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 8:16 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt @Robbie @Tim is it ok for you to have 5.17.0
>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spring5,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j2, JDK11 and include JMS2 in 5.18.0 that can
>>> happen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quickly ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:09 PM Christopher Shannon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 on moving forward without JMS 2.0 until
>>> 5.18.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no consensus to keep it in 5.17.0. There are
>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not want to include it in 5.17.0 so it's time to
>>> move
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also need to revert the commits from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7309 as
>>> there
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include that now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I say go ahead with the release and vote (after
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including reverting that AMQ-7309 JMS 2 stuff).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty tired of the back and forth and fighting
>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers to be honest and just want to move on. It's
>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> productive to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguing anymore over a version...5.18.0 can literally
>>> go
>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whenever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 8:50 AM Jean-Baptiste
>>> Onofré <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quick update about 5.17.0 release:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I fixed/squash log4j2 update PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/662). I
>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting for the end of Jenkins).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Apache POM 25 update PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Spring 5.3.16 update PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, ActiveMQ 5.17.0 is almost ready from this
>>>>>>>> standpoint.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I would like to start the vote asap, It would be
>>>>>>>>>>>> great to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> act
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS2. Do you want me to start with different
>>> options ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:55 AM Jean-Baptiste
>>> Onofré <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I worked on the log4j2 update PR this weekend,
>>> fixing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests using a custom appender. I just have to fix
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-web-demo test and squash, and the PR
>>> will be
>>>>>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged. I will do that today.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, later today and tomorrow I will work on
>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>> jetty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of jetty-all and update to Jetty 9.4.45.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do a pass on Jira and PRs, especially the
>>> ones
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please ping me on slack to check together
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding this, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to
>>> vote
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thursday if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no objections.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
Re: [PROPOSAL] ActiveMQ 5.17.0 end of this week
Posted by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
The discussion veered and never came back to a consensus. The original conversation was trying to normalize terms for role and status— however, as I dug in it becomes complicated as various storage backends have their own terms. The “ah-hah” moment was the idea we should just have a simple “on | off”, “active | standby” state indicator for the broker and delegate any further meaning down to the persistence layer— “replica”, “failover”, “primary”, etc.
That convo hasn’t continued since last summer, so we should probably pick it back up.
As an original proponent of the config flag, but I’m also leaning more towards let’s not add the config flag and just move forward with the changes.
My $0.02— I know it seems mundane to change log messages, but folks really do wire up to those for alerts an things. Before we break it with change, it’d be good to be fairly certain we are not going to change it twice.
I think we should target this for 5.18.0, given the recent build fixes we need to tackle to try to get 5.17.0 done. This would give us time to try to get consensus around what ’term’ goes in the log message..
-Matt Pavlovich
> On Mar 1, 2022, at 1:47 PM, Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Looking at it more I think that in this particular case it's not a big risk
> to include since it's just logging so it's probably fine. But as I said I
> find very little value in having a toggle mode so I would be a -1 to
> include in the current form and think the toggle mode should be removed.
> That will make the change even simpler. If you want to update and rebase we
> can get it merged.
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:53 PM Étienne Hossack <ac...@hossack.me> wrote:
>
>> Not that I disagree we should be moving to faster releases, but they've
>> been sitting approved for months now ready to merge, so I think it's
>> reasonable to request they make it in this release. (the base PR was
>> simplified according to comments and never revisited)
>>
>> It's also really trivial for me to change that PR to remove the toggle and
>> happy to do so, but as it stands, the PRs were approved.
>>
>> (FWIW I've also let JB know off this mailing list, just wanting to raise
>> visibility of that discussion now)
>>
>> --
>> Étienne
>>
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, at 10:47 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
>>> I don't really like the toggle option. I think it just overly complicates
>>> it for no reason. I think you either change it or don't so I think it
>> makes
>>> sense to skip it for 5.17 as we are trying to finalize the release and
>> then
>>> target it for 5.18.0 and make the changes without any flags. We should be
>>> going to a faster release process so I wouldn't expect it to take too
>> long.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:33 PM Étienne Hossack <ac...@hossack.me>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey all,
>>>>
>>>> There's been a few PRs open for
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514 (specifically AMQ-8317)
>>>> that have not had traction in a while. I can rebase/re-open them, but it
>>>> would be good to get the ball rolling on these in an earlier release so
>>>> that the removal can happen in a subsequent release.
>>>>
>>>> They originally targeted 5.17.0 and I'd like to still target that
>> version.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it was suggested from JB that we don't take the toggle
>> approach
>>>> of AMQ-8317 simply change the logging, but regardless of the approach
>> I'd
>>>> appreciate the approved PRs not to simply hang there :)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Étienne
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, at 7:01 AM, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>>>>> @jb- no problem. I’ll ping you on slack to coordinate the revert.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2022, at 7:32 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> About jetty PR, I gonna merge it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For AMQ-7309, I guess Matt should revert it, right ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le mar. 1 mars 2022 à 13:43, Christopher Shannon <
>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where are we on the release timetable now? Looks like AMQ-7309 still
>>>> needs
>>>>>>> to be reverted and the PR is still open for jetty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon <
>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's probably fine to change since the uber jar can't be used
>>>> anymore, as
>>>>>>>> long as the tests all pass for things like websocket and the web
>>>> console
>>>>>>>> fires up of course, etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:37 AM Matt Pavlovich <
>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> @JB Let me know if it would be helpful to look at AMQ-7309 revert
>> or
>>>>>>>>> other release tasks. I’ll be online and on Slack all day.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 28, 2022, at 9:04 AM, Christopher Shannon <
>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Good catch Robbie, I forgot about still needing to revert 7309 to
>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>> the JMS 2.0 stuff in 5.18.0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:56 AM Robbie Gemmell <
>>>>>>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would say the same things (well, did on the PR). Either way,
>> only
>>>>>>>>>>> other thing to do seems to be creating a branch and reverting
>> 7309.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 14:19, Christopher Shannon
>>>>>>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I will say that we can update the version of Jetty but if you
>> want
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> play
>>>>>>>>>>>> it safe since you are about the cut the release you could keep
>> the
>>>>>>>>> "all"
>>>>>>>>>>>> jar for now and do the dependency changes in 5.18.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:01 AM Christopher Shannon <
>>>>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, i've never liked including jetty-all and might as well
>> keep
>>>> it
>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> date with a major release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we are good to go , I did a review of a 5.17.0
>> snapshot
>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>>> week and things looked good. I will review the official
>> release
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> course
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think we are in good shape.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:45 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jeanbaptiste.onofre@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FYI, I merged log4j2 support on main for 5.17.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For security reasons and being up to date with Jetty, I would
>>>> like
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/784
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the release, I think we are good. If there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objections, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote tonight (my
>>>>>>> time).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:51 PM Robbie Gemmell <
>>>>>>>>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW it seems like it should be a simple enough revert once
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is made. Looks like 3 files (as below) have been changed
>> since
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit in a way that would need a decision upon revert. I
>> guess
>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are likely to be keeping the changes from main. Assuming so,
>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like "git revert 67256c61b -Xours" would work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though, perhaps worth looking closer at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml to see
>> if
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change there (and related property restored in the module
>> pom
>>>>>>> file)
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed, it doesnt immediately seem that related to the api
>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both modified: activemq-client/pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>> activemq-karaf-itest/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/karaf/itest/ActiveMQBrokerNdCamelFeatureTest.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both modified:
>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 16:01, Matt Pavlovich <
>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok, lets go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Christopher Shannon <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt, the reason to roll back is for what Robbie just
>> said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know the discussion originally was that the first step
>> of
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to include the jar with no impl and just UOE. But I've
>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convinced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after all the discussion the past couple weeks on this
>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> there's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no real
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point to doing so now because A) you already get the same
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including the jar yourself and B) there will be real
>> client
>>>>>>> impl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coming shortly with 5.18.0 it just makes a lot more sense
>> to
>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include everything in 5.18.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM Robbie Gemmell <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It really doesnt make sense to include changing the API
>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> 5.17.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without any impl, it would be very odd to retain to me,
>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misleading. It may also unnecessarily inconvenience
>> people
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously adapted their builds to other bits including a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely-different 2.0 API artifact if they needed it and
>>>>>>>>>>> excluding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1 api, into updating their excludes despite no impl
>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes sense to unwind it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 14:30, Matt Pavlovich <
>>>>>>>>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chris-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe the JMS 2.0 impl is in good shape (fighting
>> one
>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works-locally-fails-on-Apache-CI fun!). Given the desire
>> to
>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.17.0 out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon, I can get behind allowing more time for others to
>>>> review
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it in 5.18.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about keeping AMQ-7309 in 5.17.0 and go forward with
>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of moving on to 5.18.0 with JMS 2.0, Jakarta updates,
>> etc?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AMQ-7309 is well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed and been merged for 4 months.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 2:10 PM, Christopher Shannon <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of maintenance if we get out 2.18, 2.19, etc
>> then
>>>>>>>>>>> 2.17
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get important fixes or be made EOL and we can move on.
>>>> Long
>>>>>>>>>>> lived
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and support are not necessary if we keep up with more
>>>>>>>>>>> frequent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.17.0 is at a logical cut off point where it's at now
>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in favor of adding something brand new (Jakarta
>>>> changes)
>>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I doubt others are either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So again..it's time to move on. As everyone else
>> already
>>>>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement with (JB, Tim, Robbie) let's just do the
>> release
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current changes and then move on to 2.18.0 with JMS
>>>> 2.0,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jakarta
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updates, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:49 PM Matt Pavlovich <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey All-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get the idea that getting a JDK 11-based released
>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also think we should consider the jakarta alignment as
>>>> part
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches are supported. This is the path other
>> projects
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helps users align things when they are assembling
>> pieces
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we go with the proposed plan in this thread-- we
>> add
>>>> JDK
>>>>>>>>>>> 11,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move the ball forward on anything jakarta related — we
>>>> add
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch to maintain. As log4j showed us, having a
>> bunch of
>>>>>>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out there is a lot of work when it is time to crank
>> out
>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, keeping up with Jetty and other
>>>> dependencies
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become more difficult if we do not start taking steps
>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> align
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jakarta in supported branches.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also feel that the current status of the JMS 2.0
>> phased
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is closer to done than the amount of work to revert
>>>>>>>>>>> AMQ-7309.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR-729
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 200+ test cases and has addressed all feedback as of
>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> morning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS 2.0 tested and validated:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - All destinations (queue, topic, temp-topic,
>> temp-queue)
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types (bytes, map, object, stream, and text)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - All message property types (bytes, string, int,
>> float,
>>>>>>>>>>> double,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.) including min+max data ranges
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Foreign message support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Range checking on priority and deliveryMode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Topic Durable Subscriber (JMS v1.x alignment)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Pavlovich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 8:16 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt @Robbie @Tim is it ok for you to have 5.17.0
>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spring5,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j2, JDK11 and include JMS2 in 5.18.0 that can
>> happen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quickly ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:09 PM Christopher Shannon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 on moving forward without JMS 2.0 until
>> 5.18.0.
>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no consensus to keep it in 5.17.0. There are
>>>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not want to include it in 5.17.0 so it's time to
>> move
>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also need to revert the commits from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7309 as
>> there
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include that now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I say go ahead with the release and vote (after
>>>>>>>>>>> wrapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including reverting that AMQ-7309 JMS 2 stuff).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty tired of the back and forth and fighting
>>>> over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers to be honest and just want to move on. It's
>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> productive to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguing anymore over a version...5.18.0 can literally
>> go
>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whenever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 8:50 AM Jean-Baptiste
>> Onofré <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quick update about 5.17.0 release:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I fixed/squash log4j2 update PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/662). I
>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting for the end of Jenkins).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Apache POM 25 update PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Spring 5.3.16 update PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, ActiveMQ 5.17.0 is almost ready from this
>>>>>>> standpoint.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I would like to start the vote asap, It would be
>>>>>>>>>>> great to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> act
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS2. Do you want me to start with different
>> options ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:55 AM Jean-Baptiste
>> Onofré <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I worked on the log4j2 update PR this weekend,
>> fixing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests using a custom appender. I just have to fix
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-web-demo test and squash, and the PR
>> will be
>>>>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged. I will do that today.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, later today and tomorrow I will work on
>> using
>>>>>>>>>>> jetty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of jetty-all and update to Jetty 9.4.45.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do a pass on Jira and PRs, especially the
>> ones
>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please ping me on slack to check together
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding this, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to
>> vote
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thursday if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no objections.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
Re: [PROPOSAL] ActiveMQ 5.17.0 end of this week
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
Looking at it more I think that in this particular case it's not a big risk
to include since it's just logging so it's probably fine. But as I said I
find very little value in having a toggle mode so I would be a -1 to
include in the current form and think the toggle mode should be removed.
That will make the change even simpler. If you want to update and rebase we
can get it merged.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:53 PM Étienne Hossack <ac...@hossack.me> wrote:
> Not that I disagree we should be moving to faster releases, but they've
> been sitting approved for months now ready to merge, so I think it's
> reasonable to request they make it in this release. (the base PR was
> simplified according to comments and never revisited)
>
> It's also really trivial for me to change that PR to remove the toggle and
> happy to do so, but as it stands, the PRs were approved.
>
> (FWIW I've also let JB know off this mailing list, just wanting to raise
> visibility of that discussion now)
>
> --
> Étienne
>
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, at 10:47 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
> > I don't really like the toggle option. I think it just overly complicates
> > it for no reason. I think you either change it or don't so I think it
> makes
> > sense to skip it for 5.17 as we are trying to finalize the release and
> then
> > target it for 5.18.0 and make the changes without any flags. We should be
> > going to a faster release process so I wouldn't expect it to take too
> long.
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:33 PM Étienne Hossack <ac...@hossack.me>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> There's been a few PRs open for
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514 (specifically AMQ-8317)
> >> that have not had traction in a while. I can rebase/re-open them, but it
> >> would be good to get the ball rolling on these in an earlier release so
> >> that the removal can happen in a subsequent release.
> >>
> >> They originally targeted 5.17.0 and I'd like to still target that
> version.
> >>
> >> Of course it was suggested from JB that we don't take the toggle
> approach
> >> of AMQ-8317 simply change the logging, but regardless of the approach
> I'd
> >> appreciate the approved PRs not to simply hang there :)
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Étienne
> >>
> >> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, at 7:01 AM, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> >> > @jb- no problem. I’ll ping you on slack to coordinate the revert.
> >> >
> >> >> On Mar 1, 2022, at 7:32 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi
> >> >>
> >> >> About jetty PR, I gonna merge it.
> >> >>
> >> >> For AMQ-7309, I guess Matt should revert it, right ?
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards
> >> >> JB
> >> >>
> >> >> Le mar. 1 mars 2022 à 13:43, Christopher Shannon <
> >> >> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >> >>
> >> >>> Where are we on the release timetable now? Looks like AMQ-7309 still
> >> needs
> >> >>> to be reverted and the PR is still open for jetty.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon <
> >> >>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> It's probably fine to change since the uber jar can't be used
> >> anymore, as
> >> >>>> long as the tests all pass for things like websocket and the web
> >> console
> >> >>>> fires up of course, etc.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:37 AM Matt Pavlovich <
> mattrpav@gmail.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> @JB Let me know if it would be helpful to look at AMQ-7309 revert
> or
> >> >>>>> other release tasks. I’ll be online and on Slack all day.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Feb 28, 2022, at 9:04 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> >> >>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Good catch Robbie, I forgot about still needing to revert 7309 to
> >> keep
> >> >>>>> all
> >> >>>>>> the JMS 2.0 stuff in 5.18.0
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:56 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> >> >>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> I would say the same things (well, did on the PR). Either way,
> only
> >> >>>>>>> other thing to do seems to be creating a branch and reverting
> 7309.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 14:19, Christopher Shannon
> >> >>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> I will say that we can update the version of Jetty but if you
> want
> >> >>> to
> >> >>>>>>> play
> >> >>>>>>>> it safe since you are about the cut the release you could keep
> the
> >> >>>>> "all"
> >> >>>>>>>> jar for now and do the dependency changes in 5.18.0
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:01 AM Christopher Shannon <
> >> >>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> +1, i've never liked including jetty-all and might as well
> keep
> >> it
> >> >>> up
> >> >>>>>>> to
> >> >>>>>>>>> date with a major release.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> I think we are good to go , I did a review of a 5.17.0
> snapshot
> >> >>> build
> >> >>>>>>> last
> >> >>>>>>>>> week and things looked good. I will review the official
> release
> >> of
> >> >>>>>>> course
> >> >>>>>>>>> but I think we are in good shape.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:45 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> >> >>>>>>>>> jeanbaptiste.onofre@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> FYI, I merged log4j2 support on main for 5.17.0.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> For security reasons and being up to date with Jetty, I would
> >> like
> >> >>>>> to
> >> >>>>>>>>>> include https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/784
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Thoughts ?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Regarding the release, I think we are good. If there are no
> >> >>>>>>>>>> objections, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote tonight (my
> >> >>> time).
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >> >>>>>>>>>> JB
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:51 PM Robbie Gemmell <
> >> >>>>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> FWIW it seems like it should be a simple enough revert once
> the
> >> >>>>>>> branch
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> is made. Looks like 3 files (as below) have been changed
> since
> >> >>> the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> commit in a way that would need a decision upon revert. I
> guess
> >> >>>>>>> those
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> are likely to be keeping the changes from main. Assuming so,
> >> >>> seems
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> like "git revert 67256c61b -Xours" would work.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Though, perhaps worth looking closer at
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml to see
> if
> >> the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> change there (and related property restored in the module
> pom
> >> >>> file)
> >> >>>>>>> is
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> needed, it doesnt immediately seem that related to the api
> >> >>> change.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> both modified: activemq-client/pom.xml
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> both modified:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>
> >>
> activemq-karaf-itest/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/karaf/itest/ActiveMQBrokerNdCamelFeatureTest.java
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> both modified:
> >> >>>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 16:01, Matt Pavlovich <
> >> mattrpav@gmail.com
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> ok, lets go
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> >> >>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt, the reason to roll back is for what Robbie just
> said.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I know the discussion originally was that the first step
> of
> >> >>> this
> >> >>>>>>>>>> would be
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to include the jar with no impl and just UOE. But I've
> been
> >> >>>>>>>>>> convinced
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> after all the discussion the past couple weeks on this
> that
> >> >>>>>>> there's
> >> >>>>>>>>>> no real
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> point to doing so now because A) you already get the same
> >> >>>>>>> behavior
> >> >>>>>>>>>> with
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> including the jar yourself and B) there will be real
> client
> >> >>> impl
> >> >>>>>>>>>> changes
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> coming shortly with 5.18.0 it just makes a lot more sense
> to
> >> me
> >> >>>>>>> to
> >> >>>>>>>>>> wait and
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> include everything in 5.18.0.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> >> >>>>>>>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It really doesnt make sense to include changing the API
> in
> >> >>>>>>> 5.17.0
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> without any impl, it would be very odd to retain to me,
> and
> >> >>>>>>> also
> >> >>>>>>>>>> quite
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> misleading. It may also unnecessarily inconvenience
> people
> >> >>> that
> >> >>>>>>>>>> have
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously adapted their builds to other bits including a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely-different 2.0 API artifact if they needed it and
> >> >>>>>>> excluding
> >> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1 api, into updating their excludes despite no impl
> >> change.
> >> >>>>>>> It
> >> >>>>>>>>>> just
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes sense to unwind it.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 14:30, Matt Pavlovich <
> >> >>>>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chris-
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe the JMS 2.0 impl is in good shape (fighting
> one
> >> >>> test
> >> >>>>>>>>>> that
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> works-locally-fails-on-Apache-CI fun!). Given the desire
> to
> >> >>> get
> >> >>>>>>>>>> 5.17.0 out
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon, I can get behind allowing more time for others to
> >> review
> >> >>>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>>>> roll
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it in 5.18.0.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about keeping AMQ-7309 in 5.17.0 and go forward with
> >> your
> >> >>>>>>>>>> suggestion
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of moving on to 5.18.0 with JMS 2.0, Jakarta updates,
> etc?
> >> >>>>>>>>>> AMQ-7309 is well
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed and been merged for 4 months.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 2:10 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of maintenance if we get out 2.18, 2.19, etc
> then
> >> >>>>>>> 2.17
> >> >>>>>>>>>> can
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get important fixes or be made EOL and we can move on.
> >> Long
> >> >>>>>>> lived
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and support are not necessary if we keep up with more
> >> >>>>>>> frequent
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.17.0 is at a logical cut off point where it's at now
> and
> >> >>>>>>> I'm
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in favor of adding something brand new (Jakarta
> >> changes)
> >> >>>>>>> last
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> minute
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I doubt others are either.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So again..it's time to move on. As everyone else
> already
> >> >>>>>>> seems
> >> >>>>>>>>>> to be in
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement with (JB, Tim, Robbie) let's just do the
> release
> >> >>>>>>> this
> >> >>>>>>>>>> week
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current changes and then move on to 2.18.0 with JMS
> >> 2.0,
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Jakarta
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updates, etc.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:49 PM Matt Pavlovich <
> >> >>>>>>>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey All-
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get the idea that getting a JDK 11-based released
> is a
> >> >>>>>>> good
> >> >>>>>>>>>> thing,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also think we should consider the jakarta alignment as
> >> part
> >> >>>>>>> of
> >> >>>>>>>>>> what
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> active
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches are supported. This is the path other
> projects
> >> >>> have
> >> >>>>>>>>>> taken and
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helps users align things when they are assembling
> pieces
> >> >>> for
> >> >>>>>>>>>> their
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we go with the proposed plan in this thread-- we
> add
> >> JDK
> >> >>>>>>> 11,
> >> >>>>>>>>>> but
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move the ball forward on anything jakarta related — we
> >> add
> >> >>>>>>>>>> another
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> active
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch to maintain. As log4j showed us, having a
> bunch of
> >> >>>>>>> active
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out there is a lot of work when it is time to crank
> out
> >> >>>>>>> security
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, keeping up with Jetty and other
> >> dependencies
> >> >>>>>>> is
> >> >>>>>>>>>> going to
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become more difficult if we do not start taking steps
> to
> >> >>>>>>> align
> >> >>>>>>>>>> JDK +
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jakarta in supported branches.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also feel that the current status of the JMS 2.0
> phased
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is closer to done than the amount of work to revert
> >> >>>>>>> AMQ-7309.
> >> >>>>>>>>>> PR-729
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 200+ test cases and has addressed all feedback as of
> this
> >> >>>>>>>>>> morning.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS 2.0 tested and validated:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - All destinations (queue, topic, temp-topic,
> temp-queue)
> >> >>>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>>>> all
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types (bytes, map, object, stream, and text)
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - All message property types (bytes, string, int,
> float,
> >> >>>>>>> double,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> short,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.) including min+max data ranges
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Foreign message support
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Range checking on priority and deliveryMode
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Topic Durable Subscriber (JMS v1.x alignment)
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Pavlovich
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 8:16 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> >> >>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt @Robbie @Tim is it ok for you to have 5.17.0
> with
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Spring5,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j2, JDK11 and include JMS2 in 5.18.0 that can
> happen
> >> >>>>>>>>>> quickly ?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:09 PM Christopher Shannon
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 on moving forward without JMS 2.0 until
> 5.18.0.
> >> >>>>>>> The
> >> >>>>>>>>>> reality
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no consensus to keep it in 5.17.0. There are
> >> >>>>>>> multiple
> >> >>>>>>>>>> people
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not want to include it in 5.17.0 so it's time to
> move
> >> on
> >> >>>>>>>>>> without.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also need to revert the commits from
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7309 as
> there
> >> is
> >> >>>>>>> no
> >> >>>>>>>>>> reason
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include that now.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I say go ahead with the release and vote (after
> >> >>>>>>> wrapping
> >> >>>>>>>>>> things
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including reverting that AMQ-7309 JMS 2 stuff).
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty tired of the back and forth and fighting
> >> over
> >> >>>>>>>>>> version
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers to be honest and just want to move on. It's
> not
> >> >>>>>>>>>> productive to
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguing anymore over a version...5.18.0 can literally
> go
> >> >>> out
> >> >>>>>>>>>> whenever
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 8:50 AM Jean-Baptiste
> Onofré <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quick update about 5.17.0 release:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I fixed/squash log4j2 update PR
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/662). I
> >> think
> >> >>>>>>> it's
> >> >>>>>>>>>> OK
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I'm
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting for the end of Jenkins).
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Apache POM 25 update PR
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Spring 5.3.16 update PR
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, ActiveMQ 5.17.0 is almost ready from this
> >> >>> standpoint.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I would like to start the vote asap, It would be
> >> >>>>>>> great to
> >> >>>>>>>>>> act
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS2. Do you want me to start with different
> options ?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:55 AM Jean-Baptiste
> Onofré <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I worked on the log4j2 update PR this weekend,
> fixing
> >> >>>>>>>>>> almost all
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unit
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests using a custom appender. I just have to fix
> the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-web-demo test and squash, and the PR
> will be
> >> >>>>>>> good
> >> >>>>>>>>>> to be
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged. I will do that today.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, later today and tomorrow I will work on
> using
> >> >>>>>>> jetty
> >> >>>>>>>>>> modules
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of jetty-all and update to Jetty 9.4.45.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do a pass on Jira and PRs, especially the
> ones
> >> >>>>>>> from
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Matt.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please ping me on slack to check together
> the
> >> >>>>>>>>>> status of
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs ?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding this, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to
> vote
> >> >>>>>>> this
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thursday if
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no objections.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>
> >>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] ActiveMQ 5.17.0 end of this week
Posted by Étienne Hossack <ac...@hossack.me>.
Not that I disagree we should be moving to faster releases, but they've been sitting approved for months now ready to merge, so I think it's reasonable to request they make it in this release. (the base PR was simplified according to comments and never revisited)
It's also really trivial for me to change that PR to remove the toggle and happy to do so, but as it stands, the PRs were approved.
(FWIW I've also let JB know off this mailing list, just wanting to raise visibility of that discussion now)
--
Étienne
On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, at 10:47 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
> I don't really like the toggle option. I think it just overly complicates
> it for no reason. I think you either change it or don't so I think it makes
> sense to skip it for 5.17 as we are trying to finalize the release and then
> target it for 5.18.0 and make the changes without any flags. We should be
> going to a faster release process so I wouldn't expect it to take too long.
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:33 PM Étienne Hossack <ac...@hossack.me> wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> There's been a few PRs open for
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514 (specifically AMQ-8317)
>> that have not had traction in a while. I can rebase/re-open them, but it
>> would be good to get the ball rolling on these in an earlier release so
>> that the removal can happen in a subsequent release.
>>
>> They originally targeted 5.17.0 and I'd like to still target that version.
>>
>> Of course it was suggested from JB that we don't take the toggle approach
>> of AMQ-8317 simply change the logging, but regardless of the approach I'd
>> appreciate the approved PRs not to simply hang there :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Étienne
>>
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, at 7:01 AM, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>> > @jb- no problem. I’ll ping you on slack to coordinate the revert.
>> >
>> >> On Mar 1, 2022, at 7:32 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi
>> >>
>> >> About jetty PR, I gonna merge it.
>> >>
>> >> For AMQ-7309, I guess Matt should revert it, right ?
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >> JB
>> >>
>> >> Le mar. 1 mars 2022 à 13:43, Christopher Shannon <
>> >> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> a écrit :
>> >>
>> >>> Where are we on the release timetable now? Looks like AMQ-7309 still
>> needs
>> >>> to be reverted and the PR is still open for jetty.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon <
>> >>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> It's probably fine to change since the uber jar can't be used
>> anymore, as
>> >>>> long as the tests all pass for things like websocket and the web
>> console
>> >>>> fires up of course, etc.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:37 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> @JB Let me know if it would be helpful to look at AMQ-7309 revert or
>> >>>>> other release tasks. I’ll be online and on Slack all day.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Feb 28, 2022, at 9:04 AM, Christopher Shannon <
>> >>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Good catch Robbie, I forgot about still needing to revert 7309 to
>> keep
>> >>>>> all
>> >>>>>> the JMS 2.0 stuff in 5.18.0
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:56 AM Robbie Gemmell <
>> >>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I would say the same things (well, did on the PR). Either way, only
>> >>>>>>> other thing to do seems to be creating a branch and reverting 7309.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 14:19, Christopher Shannon
>> >>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I will say that we can update the version of Jetty but if you want
>> >>> to
>> >>>>>>> play
>> >>>>>>>> it safe since you are about the cut the release you could keep the
>> >>>>> "all"
>> >>>>>>>> jar for now and do the dependency changes in 5.18.0
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:01 AM Christopher Shannon <
>> >>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> +1, i've never liked including jetty-all and might as well keep
>> it
>> >>> up
>> >>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>> date with a major release.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I think we are good to go , I did a review of a 5.17.0 snapshot
>> >>> build
>> >>>>>>> last
>> >>>>>>>>> week and things looked good. I will review the official release
>> of
>> >>>>>>> course
>> >>>>>>>>> but I think we are in good shape.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:45 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>> >>>>>>>>> jeanbaptiste.onofre@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> FYI, I merged log4j2 support on main for 5.17.0.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> For security reasons and being up to date with Jetty, I would
>> like
>> >>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>> include https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/784
>> >>>>>>>>>> Thoughts ?
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Regarding the release, I think we are good. If there are no
>> >>>>>>>>>> objections, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote tonight (my
>> >>> time).
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards
>> >>>>>>>>>> JB
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:51 PM Robbie Gemmell <
>> >>>>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> FWIW it seems like it should be a simple enough revert once the
>> >>>>>>> branch
>> >>>>>>>>>>> is made. Looks like 3 files (as below) have been changed since
>> >>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>> commit in a way that would need a decision upon revert. I guess
>> >>>>>>> those
>> >>>>>>>>>>> are likely to be keeping the changes from main. Assuming so,
>> >>> seems
>> >>>>>>>>>>> like "git revert 67256c61b -Xours" would work.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Though, perhaps worth looking closer at
>> >>>>>>>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml to see if
>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>> change there (and related property restored in the module pom
>> >>> file)
>> >>>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>>>>> needed, it doesnt immediately seem that related to the api
>> >>> change.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> both modified: activemq-client/pom.xml
>> >>>>>>>>>>> both modified:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> activemq-karaf-itest/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/karaf/itest/ActiveMQBrokerNdCamelFeatureTest.java
>> >>>>>>>>>>> both modified:
>> >>>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 16:01, Matt Pavlovich <
>> mattrpav@gmail.com
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ok, lets go
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Christopher Shannon <
>> >>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt, the reason to roll back is for what Robbie just said.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I know the discussion originally was that the first step of
>> >>> this
>> >>>>>>>>>> would be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to include the jar with no impl and just UOE. But I've been
>> >>>>>>>>>> convinced
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> after all the discussion the past couple weeks on this that
>> >>>>>>> there's
>> >>>>>>>>>> no real
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> point to doing so now because A) you already get the same
>> >>>>>>> behavior
>> >>>>>>>>>> with
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> including the jar yourself and B) there will be real client
>> >>> impl
>> >>>>>>>>>> changes
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> coming shortly with 5.18.0 it just makes a lot more sense to
>> me
>> >>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>> wait and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> include everything in 5.18.0.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM Robbie Gemmell <
>> >>>>>>>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It really doesnt make sense to include changing the API in
>> >>>>>>> 5.17.0
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> without any impl, it would be very odd to retain to me, and
>> >>>>>>> also
>> >>>>>>>>>> quite
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> misleading. It may also unnecessarily inconvenience people
>> >>> that
>> >>>>>>>>>> have
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously adapted their builds to other bits including a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely-different 2.0 API artifact if they needed it and
>> >>>>>>> excluding
>> >>>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1 api, into updating their excludes despite no impl
>> change.
>> >>>>>>> It
>> >>>>>>>>>> just
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes sense to unwind it.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 14:30, Matt Pavlovich <
>> >>>>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chris-
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe the JMS 2.0 impl is in good shape (fighting one
>> >>> test
>> >>>>>>>>>> that
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> works-locally-fails-on-Apache-CI fun!). Given the desire to
>> >>> get
>> >>>>>>>>>> 5.17.0 out
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon, I can get behind allowing more time for others to
>> review
>> >>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>> roll
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it in 5.18.0.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about keeping AMQ-7309 in 5.17.0 and go forward with
>> your
>> >>>>>>>>>> suggestion
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of moving on to 5.18.0 with JMS 2.0, Jakarta updates, etc?
>> >>>>>>>>>> AMQ-7309 is well
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed and been merged for 4 months.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 2:10 PM, Christopher Shannon <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of maintenance if we get out 2.18, 2.19, etc then
>> >>>>>>> 2.17
>> >>>>>>>>>> can
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get important fixes or be made EOL and we can move on.
>> Long
>> >>>>>>> lived
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and support are not necessary if we keep up with more
>> >>>>>>> frequent
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.17.0 is at a logical cut off point where it's at now and
>> >>>>>>> I'm
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in favor of adding something brand new (Jakarta
>> changes)
>> >>>>>>> last
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> minute
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I doubt others are either.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So again..it's time to move on. As everyone else already
>> >>>>>>> seems
>> >>>>>>>>>> to be in
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement with (JB, Tim, Robbie) let's just do the release
>> >>>>>>> this
>> >>>>>>>>>> week
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current changes and then move on to 2.18.0 with JMS
>> 2.0,
>> >>>>>>>>>> Jakarta
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updates, etc.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:49 PM Matt Pavlovich <
>> >>>>>>>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey All-
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get the idea that getting a JDK 11-based released is a
>> >>>>>>> good
>> >>>>>>>>>> thing,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also think we should consider the jakarta alignment as
>> part
>> >>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>>>> what
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> active
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches are supported. This is the path other projects
>> >>> have
>> >>>>>>>>>> taken and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helps users align things when they are assembling pieces
>> >>> for
>> >>>>>>>>>> their
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we go with the proposed plan in this thread-- we add
>> JDK
>> >>>>>>> 11,
>> >>>>>>>>>> but
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move the ball forward on anything jakarta related — we
>> add
>> >>>>>>>>>> another
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> active
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch to maintain. As log4j showed us, having a bunch of
>> >>>>>>> active
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out there is a lot of work when it is time to crank out
>> >>>>>>> security
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, keeping up with Jetty and other
>> dependencies
>> >>>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>>>> going to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become more difficult if we do not start taking steps to
>> >>>>>>> align
>> >>>>>>>>>> JDK +
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jakarta in supported branches.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also feel that the current status of the JMS 2.0 phased
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is closer to done than the amount of work to revert
>> >>>>>>> AMQ-7309.
>> >>>>>>>>>> PR-729
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 200+ test cases and has addressed all feedback as of this
>> >>>>>>>>>> morning.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS 2.0 tested and validated:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - All destinations (queue, topic, temp-topic, temp-queue)
>> >>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>> all
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types (bytes, map, object, stream, and text)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - All message property types (bytes, string, int, float,
>> >>>>>>> double,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> short,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.) including min+max data ranges
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Foreign message support
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Range checking on priority and deliveryMode
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Topic Durable Subscriber (JMS v1.x alignment)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Pavlovich
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 8:16 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>> >>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt @Robbie @Tim is it ok for you to have 5.17.0 with
>> >>>>>>>>>> Spring5,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j2, JDK11 and include JMS2 in 5.18.0 that can happen
>> >>>>>>>>>> quickly ?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:09 PM Christopher Shannon
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 on moving forward without JMS 2.0 until 5.18.0.
>> >>>>>>> The
>> >>>>>>>>>> reality
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no consensus to keep it in 5.17.0. There are
>> >>>>>>> multiple
>> >>>>>>>>>> people
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not want to include it in 5.17.0 so it's time to move
>> on
>> >>>>>>>>>> without.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also need to revert the commits from
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7309 as there
>> is
>> >>>>>>> no
>> >>>>>>>>>> reason
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include that now.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I say go ahead with the release and vote (after
>> >>>>>>> wrapping
>> >>>>>>>>>> things
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including reverting that AMQ-7309 JMS 2 stuff).
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty tired of the back and forth and fighting
>> over
>> >>>>>>>>>> version
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers to be honest and just want to move on. It's not
>> >>>>>>>>>> productive to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguing anymore over a version...5.18.0 can literally go
>> >>> out
>> >>>>>>>>>> whenever
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 8:50 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quick update about 5.17.0 release:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I fixed/squash log4j2 update PR
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/662). I
>> think
>> >>>>>>> it's
>> >>>>>>>>>> OK
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I'm
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting for the end of Jenkins).
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Apache POM 25 update PR
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Spring 5.3.16 update PR
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, ActiveMQ 5.17.0 is almost ready from this
>> >>> standpoint.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I would like to start the vote asap, It would be
>> >>>>>>> great to
>> >>>>>>>>>> act
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS2. Do you want me to start with different options ?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:55 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I worked on the log4j2 update PR this weekend, fixing
>> >>>>>>>>>> almost all
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unit
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests using a custom appender. I just have to fix the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-web-demo test and squash, and the PR will be
>> >>>>>>> good
>> >>>>>>>>>> to be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged. I will do that today.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, later today and tomorrow I will work on using
>> >>>>>>> jetty
>> >>>>>>>>>> modules
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of jetty-all and update to Jetty 9.4.45.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do a pass on Jira and PRs, especially the ones
>> >>>>>>> from
>> >>>>>>>>>> Matt.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please ping me on slack to check together the
>> >>>>>>>>>> status of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs ?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding this, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote
>> >>>>>>> this
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thursday if
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no objections.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>>
Re: [PROPOSAL] ActiveMQ 5.17.0 end of this week
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
I don't really like the toggle option. I think it just overly complicates
it for no reason. I think you either change it or don't so I think it makes
sense to skip it for 5.17 as we are trying to finalize the release and then
target it for 5.18.0 and make the changes without any flags. We should be
going to a faster release process so I wouldn't expect it to take too long.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:33 PM Étienne Hossack <ac...@hossack.me> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> There's been a few PRs open for
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514 (specifically AMQ-8317)
> that have not had traction in a while. I can rebase/re-open them, but it
> would be good to get the ball rolling on these in an earlier release so
> that the removal can happen in a subsequent release.
>
> They originally targeted 5.17.0 and I'd like to still target that version.
>
> Of course it was suggested from JB that we don't take the toggle approach
> of AMQ-8317 simply change the logging, but regardless of the approach I'd
> appreciate the approved PRs not to simply hang there :)
>
> Cheers,
> Étienne
>
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, at 7:01 AM, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> > @jb- no problem. I’ll ping you on slack to coordinate the revert.
> >
> >> On Mar 1, 2022, at 7:32 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> About jetty PR, I gonna merge it.
> >>
> >> For AMQ-7309, I guess Matt should revert it, right ?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> JB
> >>
> >> Le mar. 1 mars 2022 à 13:43, Christopher Shannon <
> >> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >>
> >>> Where are we on the release timetable now? Looks like AMQ-7309 still
> needs
> >>> to be reverted and the PR is still open for jetty.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon <
> >>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It's probably fine to change since the uber jar can't be used
> anymore, as
> >>>> long as the tests all pass for things like websocket and the web
> console
> >>>> fires up of course, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:37 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> @JB Let me know if it would be helpful to look at AMQ-7309 revert or
> >>>>> other release tasks. I’ll be online and on Slack all day.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Feb 28, 2022, at 9:04 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> >>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Good catch Robbie, I forgot about still needing to revert 7309 to
> keep
> >>>>> all
> >>>>>> the JMS 2.0 stuff in 5.18.0
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:56 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> >>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I would say the same things (well, did on the PR). Either way, only
> >>>>>>> other thing to do seems to be creating a branch and reverting 7309.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 14:19, Christopher Shannon
> >>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I will say that we can update the version of Jetty but if you want
> >>> to
> >>>>>>> play
> >>>>>>>> it safe since you are about the cut the release you could keep the
> >>>>> "all"
> >>>>>>>> jar for now and do the dependency changes in 5.18.0
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:01 AM Christopher Shannon <
> >>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> +1, i've never liked including jetty-all and might as well keep
> it
> >>> up
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> date with a major release.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I think we are good to go , I did a review of a 5.17.0 snapshot
> >>> build
> >>>>>>> last
> >>>>>>>>> week and things looked good. I will review the official release
> of
> >>>>>>> course
> >>>>>>>>> but I think we are in good shape.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:45 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> >>>>>>>>> jeanbaptiste.onofre@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> FYI, I merged log4j2 support on main for 5.17.0.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> For security reasons and being up to date with Jetty, I would
> like
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> include https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/784
> >>>>>>>>>> Thoughts ?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Regarding the release, I think we are good. If there are no
> >>>>>>>>>> objections, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote tonight (my
> >>> time).
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>> JB
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:51 PM Robbie Gemmell <
> >>>>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> FWIW it seems like it should be a simple enough revert once the
> >>>>>>> branch
> >>>>>>>>>>> is made. Looks like 3 files (as below) have been changed since
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> commit in a way that would need a decision upon revert. I guess
> >>>>>>> those
> >>>>>>>>>>> are likely to be keeping the changes from main. Assuming so,
> >>> seems
> >>>>>>>>>>> like "git revert 67256c61b -Xours" would work.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Though, perhaps worth looking closer at
> >>>>>>>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml to see if
> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> change there (and related property restored in the module pom
> >>> file)
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>> needed, it doesnt immediately seem that related to the api
> >>> change.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> both modified: activemq-client/pom.xml
> >>>>>>>>>>> both modified:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> activemq-karaf-itest/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/karaf/itest/ActiveMQBrokerNdCamelFeatureTest.java
> >>>>>>>>>>> both modified:
> >>>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 16:01, Matt Pavlovich <
> mattrpav@gmail.com
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ok, lets go
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> >>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt, the reason to roll back is for what Robbie just said.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I know the discussion originally was that the first step of
> >>> this
> >>>>>>>>>> would be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to include the jar with no impl and just UOE. But I've been
> >>>>>>>>>> convinced
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> after all the discussion the past couple weeks on this that
> >>>>>>> there's
> >>>>>>>>>> no real
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> point to doing so now because A) you already get the same
> >>>>>>> behavior
> >>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> including the jar yourself and B) there will be real client
> >>> impl
> >>>>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> coming shortly with 5.18.0 it just makes a lot more sense to
> me
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> wait and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> include everything in 5.18.0.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> >>>>>>>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It really doesnt make sense to include changing the API in
> >>>>>>> 5.17.0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> without any impl, it would be very odd to retain to me, and
> >>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>> quite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> misleading. It may also unnecessarily inconvenience people
> >>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously adapted their builds to other bits including a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely-different 2.0 API artifact if they needed it and
> >>>>>>> excluding
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1 api, into updating their excludes despite no impl
> change.
> >>>>>>> It
> >>>>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes sense to unwind it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 14:30, Matt Pavlovich <
> >>>>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chris-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe the JMS 2.0 impl is in good shape (fighting one
> >>> test
> >>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> works-locally-fails-on-Apache-CI fun!). Given the desire to
> >>> get
> >>>>>>>>>> 5.17.0 out
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon, I can get behind allowing more time for others to
> review
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> roll
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it in 5.18.0.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about keeping AMQ-7309 in 5.17.0 and go forward with
> your
> >>>>>>>>>> suggestion
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of moving on to 5.18.0 with JMS 2.0, Jakarta updates, etc?
> >>>>>>>>>> AMQ-7309 is well
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed and been merged for 4 months.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 2:10 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of maintenance if we get out 2.18, 2.19, etc then
> >>>>>>> 2.17
> >>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get important fixes or be made EOL and we can move on.
> Long
> >>>>>>> lived
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and support are not necessary if we keep up with more
> >>>>>>> frequent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.17.0 is at a logical cut off point where it's at now and
> >>>>>>> I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in favor of adding something brand new (Jakarta
> changes)
> >>>>>>> last
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> minute
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I doubt others are either.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So again..it's time to move on. As everyone else already
> >>>>>>> seems
> >>>>>>>>>> to be in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement with (JB, Tim, Robbie) let's just do the release
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>> week
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current changes and then move on to 2.18.0 with JMS
> 2.0,
> >>>>>>>>>> Jakarta
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updates, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:49 PM Matt Pavlovich <
> >>>>>>>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey All-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get the idea that getting a JDK 11-based released is a
> >>>>>>> good
> >>>>>>>>>> thing,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also think we should consider the jakarta alignment as
> part
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> active
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches are supported. This is the path other projects
> >>> have
> >>>>>>>>>> taken and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helps users align things when they are assembling pieces
> >>> for
> >>>>>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we go with the proposed plan in this thread-- we add
> JDK
> >>>>>>> 11,
> >>>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move the ball forward on anything jakarta related — we
> add
> >>>>>>>>>> another
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> active
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch to maintain. As log4j showed us, having a bunch of
> >>>>>>> active
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out there is a lot of work when it is time to crank out
> >>>>>>> security
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, keeping up with Jetty and other
> dependencies
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>> going to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become more difficult if we do not start taking steps to
> >>>>>>> align
> >>>>>>>>>> JDK +
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jakarta in supported branches.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also feel that the current status of the JMS 2.0 phased
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is closer to done than the amount of work to revert
> >>>>>>> AMQ-7309.
> >>>>>>>>>> PR-729
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 200+ test cases and has addressed all feedback as of this
> >>>>>>>>>> morning.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS 2.0 tested and validated:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - All destinations (queue, topic, temp-topic, temp-queue)
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types (bytes, map, object, stream, and text)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - All message property types (bytes, string, int, float,
> >>>>>>> double,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> short,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.) including min+max data ranges
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Foreign message support
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Range checking on priority and deliveryMode
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Topic Durable Subscriber (JMS v1.x alignment)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Pavlovich
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 8:16 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> >>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt @Robbie @Tim is it ok for you to have 5.17.0 with
> >>>>>>>>>> Spring5,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j2, JDK11 and include JMS2 in 5.18.0 that can happen
> >>>>>>>>>> quickly ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:09 PM Christopher Shannon
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 on moving forward without JMS 2.0 until 5.18.0.
> >>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>> reality
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no consensus to keep it in 5.17.0. There are
> >>>>>>> multiple
> >>>>>>>>>> people
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not want to include it in 5.17.0 so it's time to move
> on
> >>>>>>>>>> without.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also need to revert the commits from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7309 as there
> is
> >>>>>>> no
> >>>>>>>>>> reason
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include that now.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I say go ahead with the release and vote (after
> >>>>>>> wrapping
> >>>>>>>>>> things
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including reverting that AMQ-7309 JMS 2 stuff).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty tired of the back and forth and fighting
> over
> >>>>>>>>>> version
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers to be honest and just want to move on. It's not
> >>>>>>>>>> productive to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguing anymore over a version...5.18.0 can literally go
> >>> out
> >>>>>>>>>> whenever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 8:50 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quick update about 5.17.0 release:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I fixed/squash log4j2 update PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/662). I
> think
> >>>>>>> it's
> >>>>>>>>>> OK
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting for the end of Jenkins).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Apache POM 25 update PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Spring 5.3.16 update PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, ActiveMQ 5.17.0 is almost ready from this
> >>> standpoint.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I would like to start the vote asap, It would be
> >>>>>>> great to
> >>>>>>>>>> act
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS2. Do you want me to start with different options ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:55 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I worked on the log4j2 update PR this weekend, fixing
> >>>>>>>>>> almost all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unit
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests using a custom appender. I just have to fix the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-web-demo test and squash, and the PR will be
> >>>>>>> good
> >>>>>>>>>> to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged. I will do that today.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, later today and tomorrow I will work on using
> >>>>>>> jetty
> >>>>>>>>>> modules
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of jetty-all and update to Jetty 9.4.45.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do a pass on Jira and PRs, especially the ones
> >>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>> Matt.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please ping me on slack to check together the
> >>>>>>>>>> status of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding this, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thursday if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no objections.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] ActiveMQ 5.17.0 end of this week
Posted by Étienne Hossack <ac...@hossack.me>.
Hey all,
There's been a few PRs open for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514 (specifically AMQ-8317) that have not had traction in a while. I can rebase/re-open them, but it would be good to get the ball rolling on these in an earlier release so that the removal can happen in a subsequent release.
They originally targeted 5.17.0 and I'd like to still target that version.
Of course it was suggested from JB that we don't take the toggle approach of AMQ-8317 simply change the logging, but regardless of the approach I'd appreciate the approved PRs not to simply hang there :)
Cheers,
Étienne
On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, at 7:01 AM, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> @jb- no problem. I’ll ping you on slack to coordinate the revert.
>
>> On Mar 1, 2022, at 7:32 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> About jetty PR, I gonna merge it.
>>
>> For AMQ-7309, I guess Matt should revert it, right ?
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>> Le mar. 1 mars 2022 à 13:43, Christopher Shannon <
>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>>> Where are we on the release timetable now? Looks like AMQ-7309 still needs
>>> to be reverted and the PR is still open for jetty.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon <
>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's probably fine to change since the uber jar can't be used anymore, as
>>>> long as the tests all pass for things like websocket and the web console
>>>> fires up of course, etc.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:37 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> @JB Let me know if it would be helpful to look at AMQ-7309 revert or
>>>>> other release tasks. I’ll be online and on Slack all day.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 28, 2022, at 9:04 AM, Christopher Shannon <
>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good catch Robbie, I forgot about still needing to revert 7309 to keep
>>>>> all
>>>>>> the JMS 2.0 stuff in 5.18.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:56 AM Robbie Gemmell <
>>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would say the same things (well, did on the PR). Either way, only
>>>>>>> other thing to do seems to be creating a branch and reverting 7309.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 14:19, Christopher Shannon
>>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will say that we can update the version of Jetty but if you want
>>> to
>>>>>>> play
>>>>>>>> it safe since you are about the cut the release you could keep the
>>>>> "all"
>>>>>>>> jar for now and do the dependency changes in 5.18.0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:01 AM Christopher Shannon <
>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1, i've never liked including jetty-all and might as well keep it
>>> up
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> date with a major release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think we are good to go , I did a review of a 5.17.0 snapshot
>>> build
>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>> week and things looked good. I will review the official release of
>>>>>>> course
>>>>>>>>> but I think we are in good shape.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:45 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>>> jeanbaptiste.onofre@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FYI, I merged log4j2 support on main for 5.17.0.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For security reasons and being up to date with Jetty, I would like
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> include https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/784
>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the release, I think we are good. If there are no
>>>>>>>>>> objections, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote tonight (my
>>> time).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:51 PM Robbie Gemmell <
>>>>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW it seems like it should be a simple enough revert once the
>>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>>>> is made. Looks like 3 files (as below) have been changed since
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> commit in a way that would need a decision upon revert. I guess
>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>> are likely to be keeping the changes from main. Assuming so,
>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>> like "git revert 67256c61b -Xours" would work.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Though, perhaps worth looking closer at
>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml to see if the
>>>>>>>>>>> change there (and related property restored in the module pom
>>> file)
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> needed, it doesnt immediately seem that related to the api
>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> both modified: activemq-client/pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>> both modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> activemq-karaf-itest/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/karaf/itest/ActiveMQBrokerNdCamelFeatureTest.java
>>>>>>>>>>> both modified:
>>>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 16:01, Matt Pavlovich <mattrpav@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ok, lets go
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Christopher Shannon <
>>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt, the reason to roll back is for what Robbie just said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know the discussion originally was that the first step of
>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to include the jar with no impl and just UOE. But I've been
>>>>>>>>>> convinced
>>>>>>>>>>>>> after all the discussion the past couple weeks on this that
>>>>>>> there's
>>>>>>>>>> no real
>>>>>>>>>>>>> point to doing so now because A) you already get the same
>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> including the jar yourself and B) there will be real client
>>> impl
>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> coming shortly with 5.18.0 it just makes a lot more sense to me
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> wait and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> include everything in 5.18.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM Robbie Gemmell <
>>>>>>>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It really doesnt make sense to include changing the API in
>>>>>>> 5.17.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without any impl, it would be very odd to retain to me, and
>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>> quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misleading. It may also unnecessarily inconvenience people
>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously adapted their builds to other bits including a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely-different 2.0 API artifact if they needed it and
>>>>>>> excluding
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1 api, into updating their excludes despite no impl change.
>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes sense to unwind it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 14:30, Matt Pavlovich <
>>>>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chris-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe the JMS 2.0 impl is in good shape (fighting one
>>> test
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works-locally-fails-on-Apache-CI fun!). Given the desire to
>>> get
>>>>>>>>>> 5.17.0 out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon, I can get behind allowing more time for others to review
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> roll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it in 5.18.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about keeping AMQ-7309 in 5.17.0 and go forward with your
>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of moving on to 5.18.0 with JMS 2.0, Jakarta updates, etc?
>>>>>>>>>> AMQ-7309 is well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed and been merged for 4 months.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 2:10 PM, Christopher Shannon <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of maintenance if we get out 2.18, 2.19, etc then
>>>>>>> 2.17
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get important fixes or be made EOL and we can move on. Long
>>>>>>> lived
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and support are not necessary if we keep up with more
>>>>>>> frequent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.17.0 is at a logical cut off point where it's at now and
>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in favor of adding something brand new (Jakarta changes)
>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I doubt others are either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So again..it's time to move on. As everyone else already
>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>> to be in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement with (JB, Tim, Robbie) let's just do the release
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> week
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current changes and then move on to 2.18.0 with JMS 2.0,
>>>>>>>>>> Jakarta
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updates, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:49 PM Matt Pavlovich <
>>>>>>>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey All-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get the idea that getting a JDK 11-based released is a
>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>> thing,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also think we should consider the jakarta alignment as part
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches are supported. This is the path other projects
>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> taken and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helps users align things when they are assembling pieces
>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we go with the proposed plan in this thread-- we add JDK
>>>>>>> 11,
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move the ball forward on anything jakarta related — we add
>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch to maintain. As log4j showed us, having a bunch of
>>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out there is a lot of work when it is time to crank out
>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, keeping up with Jetty and other dependencies
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become more difficult if we do not start taking steps to
>>>>>>> align
>>>>>>>>>> JDK +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jakarta in supported branches.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also feel that the current status of the JMS 2.0 phased
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is closer to done than the amount of work to revert
>>>>>>> AMQ-7309.
>>>>>>>>>> PR-729
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 200+ test cases and has addressed all feedback as of this
>>>>>>>>>> morning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS 2.0 tested and validated:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - All destinations (queue, topic, temp-topic, temp-queue)
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types (bytes, map, object, stream, and text)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - All message property types (bytes, string, int, float,
>>>>>>> double,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.) including min+max data ranges
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Foreign message support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Range checking on priority and deliveryMode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Topic Durable Subscriber (JMS v1.x alignment)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Pavlovich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 8:16 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt @Robbie @Tim is it ok for you to have 5.17.0 with
>>>>>>>>>> Spring5,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j2, JDK11 and include JMS2 in 5.18.0 that can happen
>>>>>>>>>> quickly ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:09 PM Christopher Shannon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 on moving forward without JMS 2.0 until 5.18.0.
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>> reality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no consensus to keep it in 5.17.0. There are
>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not want to include it in 5.17.0 so it's time to move on
>>>>>>>>>> without.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also need to revert the commits from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7309 as there is
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include that now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I say go ahead with the release and vote (after
>>>>>>> wrapping
>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including reverting that AMQ-7309 JMS 2 stuff).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty tired of the back and forth and fighting over
>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers to be honest and just want to move on. It's not
>>>>>>>>>> productive to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguing anymore over a version...5.18.0 can literally go
>>> out
>>>>>>>>>> whenever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 8:50 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quick update about 5.17.0 release:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I fixed/squash log4j2 update PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/662). I think
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>> OK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting for the end of Jenkins).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Apache POM 25 update PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Spring 5.3.16 update PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, ActiveMQ 5.17.0 is almost ready from this
>>> standpoint.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I would like to start the vote asap, It would be
>>>>>>> great to
>>>>>>>>>> act
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS2. Do you want me to start with different options ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:55 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I worked on the log4j2 update PR this weekend, fixing
>>>>>>>>>> almost all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests using a custom appender. I just have to fix the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-web-demo test and squash, and the PR will be
>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged. I will do that today.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, later today and tomorrow I will work on using
>>>>>>> jetty
>>>>>>>>>> modules
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of jetty-all and update to Jetty 9.4.45.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do a pass on Jira and PRs, especially the ones
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>> Matt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please ping me on slack to check together the
>>>>>>>>>> status of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding this, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thursday if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no objections.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
Re: [PROPOSAL] ActiveMQ 5.17.0 end of this week
Posted by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
@jb- no problem. I’ll ping you on slack to coordinate the revert.
> On Mar 1, 2022, at 7:32 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> About jetty PR, I gonna merge it.
>
> For AMQ-7309, I guess Matt should revert it, right ?
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> Le mar. 1 mars 2022 à 13:43, Christopher Shannon <
> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> Where are we on the release timetable now? Looks like AMQ-7309 still needs
>> to be reverted and the PR is still open for jetty.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon <
>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's probably fine to change since the uber jar can't be used anymore, as
>>> long as the tests all pass for things like websocket and the web console
>>> fires up of course, etc.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:37 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> @JB Let me know if it would be helpful to look at AMQ-7309 revert or
>>>> other release tasks. I’ll be online and on Slack all day.
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 28, 2022, at 9:04 AM, Christopher Shannon <
>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Good catch Robbie, I forgot about still needing to revert 7309 to keep
>>>> all
>>>>> the JMS 2.0 stuff in 5.18.0
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:56 AM Robbie Gemmell <
>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would say the same things (well, did on the PR). Either way, only
>>>>>> other thing to do seems to be creating a branch and reverting 7309.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 14:19, Christopher Shannon
>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will say that we can update the version of Jetty but if you want
>> to
>>>>>> play
>>>>>>> it safe since you are about the cut the release you could keep the
>>>> "all"
>>>>>>> jar for now and do the dependency changes in 5.18.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:01 AM Christopher Shannon <
>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1, i've never liked including jetty-all and might as well keep it
>> up
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> date with a major release.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think we are good to go , I did a review of a 5.17.0 snapshot
>> build
>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>> week and things looked good. I will review the official release of
>>>>>> course
>>>>>>>> but I think we are in good shape.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:45 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>> jeanbaptiste.onofre@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FYI, I merged log4j2 support on main for 5.17.0.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For security reasons and being up to date with Jetty, I would like
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> include https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/784
>>>>>>>>> Thoughts ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regarding the release, I think we are good. If there are no
>>>>>>>>> objections, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote tonight (my
>> time).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:51 PM Robbie Gemmell <
>>>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FWIW it seems like it should be a simple enough revert once the
>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>>> is made. Looks like 3 files (as below) have been changed since
>> the
>>>>>>>>>> commit in a way that would need a decision upon revert. I guess
>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>> are likely to be keeping the changes from main. Assuming so,
>> seems
>>>>>>>>>> like "git revert 67256c61b -Xours" would work.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Though, perhaps worth looking closer at
>>>>>>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml to see if the
>>>>>>>>>> change there (and related property restored in the module pom
>> file)
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> needed, it doesnt immediately seem that related to the api
>> change.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> both modified: activemq-client/pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>> both modified:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>> activemq-karaf-itest/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/karaf/itest/ActiveMQBrokerNdCamelFeatureTest.java
>>>>>>>>>> both modified:
>>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 16:01, Matt Pavlovich <mattrpav@gmail.com
>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ok, lets go
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Christopher Shannon <
>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt, the reason to roll back is for what Robbie just said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I know the discussion originally was that the first step of
>> this
>>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>>>>>> to include the jar with no impl and just UOE. But I've been
>>>>>>>>> convinced
>>>>>>>>>>>> after all the discussion the past couple weeks on this that
>>>>>> there's
>>>>>>>>> no real
>>>>>>>>>>>> point to doing so now because A) you already get the same
>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> including the jar yourself and B) there will be real client
>> impl
>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>> coming shortly with 5.18.0 it just makes a lot more sense to me
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> wait and
>>>>>>>>>>>> include everything in 5.18.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM Robbie Gemmell <
>>>>>>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It really doesnt make sense to include changing the API in
>>>>>> 5.17.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>> without any impl, it would be very odd to retain to me, and
>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>> quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> misleading. It may also unnecessarily inconvenience people
>> that
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously adapted their builds to other bits including a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely-different 2.0 API artifact if they needed it and
>>>>>> excluding
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1 api, into updating their excludes despite no impl change.
>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes sense to unwind it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 14:30, Matt Pavlovich <
>>>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chris-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe the JMS 2.0 impl is in good shape (fighting one
>> test
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> works-locally-fails-on-Apache-CI fun!). Given the desire to
>> get
>>>>>>>>> 5.17.0 out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon, I can get behind allowing more time for others to review
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> roll
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it in 5.18.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about keeping AMQ-7309 in 5.17.0 and go forward with your
>>>>>>>>> suggestion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of moving on to 5.18.0 with JMS 2.0, Jakarta updates, etc?
>>>>>>>>> AMQ-7309 is well
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed and been merged for 4 months.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 2:10 PM, Christopher Shannon <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of maintenance if we get out 2.18, 2.19, etc then
>>>>>> 2.17
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get important fixes or be made EOL and we can move on. Long
>>>>>> lived
>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and support are not necessary if we keep up with more
>>>>>> frequent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.17.0 is at a logical cut off point where it's at now and
>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in favor of adding something brand new (Jakarta changes)
>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>>> minute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I doubt others are either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So again..it's time to move on. As everyone else already
>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>> to be in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement with (JB, Tim, Robbie) let's just do the release
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> week
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current changes and then move on to 2.18.0 with JMS 2.0,
>>>>>>>>> Jakarta
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updates, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:49 PM Matt Pavlovich <
>>>>>>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey All-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get the idea that getting a JDK 11-based released is a
>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>> thing,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also think we should consider the jakarta alignment as part
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches are supported. This is the path other projects
>> have
>>>>>>>>> taken and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helps users align things when they are assembling pieces
>> for
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we go with the proposed plan in this thread-- we add JDK
>>>>>> 11,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move the ball forward on anything jakarta related — we add
>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch to maintain. As log4j showed us, having a bunch of
>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out there is a lot of work when it is time to crank out
>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, keeping up with Jetty and other dependencies
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become more difficult if we do not start taking steps to
>>>>>> align
>>>>>>>>> JDK +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jakarta in supported branches.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also feel that the current status of the JMS 2.0 phased
>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is closer to done than the amount of work to revert
>>>>>> AMQ-7309.
>>>>>>>>> PR-729
>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 200+ test cases and has addressed all feedback as of this
>>>>>>>>> morning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS 2.0 tested and validated:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - All destinations (queue, topic, temp-topic, temp-queue)
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types (bytes, map, object, stream, and text)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - All message property types (bytes, string, int, float,
>>>>>> double,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> short,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.) including min+max data ranges
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Foreign message support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Range checking on priority and deliveryMode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Topic Durable Subscriber (JMS v1.x alignment)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Pavlovich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 8:16 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt @Robbie @Tim is it ok for you to have 5.17.0 with
>>>>>>>>> Spring5,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j2, JDK11 and include JMS2 in 5.18.0 that can happen
>>>>>>>>> quickly ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:09 PM Christopher Shannon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 on moving forward without JMS 2.0 until 5.18.0.
>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>> reality
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no consensus to keep it in 5.17.0. There are
>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not want to include it in 5.17.0 so it's time to move on
>>>>>>>>> without.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also need to revert the commits from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7309 as there is
>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include that now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I say go ahead with the release and vote (after
>>>>>> wrapping
>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including reverting that AMQ-7309 JMS 2 stuff).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty tired of the back and forth and fighting over
>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers to be honest and just want to move on. It's not
>>>>>>>>> productive to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguing anymore over a version...5.18.0 can literally go
>> out
>>>>>>>>> whenever
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 8:50 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quick update about 5.17.0 release:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I fixed/squash log4j2 update PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/662). I think
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>> OK
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting for the end of Jenkins).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Apache POM 25 update PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Spring 5.3.16 update PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, ActiveMQ 5.17.0 is almost ready from this
>> standpoint.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I would like to start the vote asap, It would be
>>>>>> great to
>>>>>>>>> act
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS2. Do you want me to start with different options ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:55 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I worked on the log4j2 update PR this weekend, fixing
>>>>>>>>> almost all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests using a custom appender. I just have to fix the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-web-demo test and squash, and the PR will be
>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged. I will do that today.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, later today and tomorrow I will work on using
>>>>>> jetty
>>>>>>>>> modules
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of jetty-all and update to Jetty 9.4.45.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do a pass on Jira and PRs, especially the ones
>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> Matt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please ping me on slack to check together the
>>>>>>>>> status of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding this, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thursday if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no objections.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
Re: [PROPOSAL] ActiveMQ 5.17.0 end of this week
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi
About jetty PR, I gonna merge it.
For AMQ-7309, I guess Matt should revert it, right ?
Regards
JB
Le mar. 1 mars 2022 à 13:43, Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Where are we on the release timetable now? Looks like AMQ-7309 still needs
> to be reverted and the PR is still open for jetty.
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon <
> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's probably fine to change since the uber jar can't be used anymore, as
> > long as the tests all pass for things like websocket and the web console
> > fires up of course, etc.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:37 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> @JB Let me know if it would be helpful to look at AMQ-7309 revert or
> >> other release tasks. I’ll be online and on Slack all day.
> >>
> >> > On Feb 28, 2022, at 9:04 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> >> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Good catch Robbie, I forgot about still needing to revert 7309 to keep
> >> all
> >> > the JMS 2.0 stuff in 5.18.0
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:56 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> >> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I would say the same things (well, did on the PR). Either way, only
> >> >> other thing to do seems to be creating a branch and reverting 7309.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 14:19, Christopher Shannon
> >> >> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I will say that we can update the version of Jetty but if you want
> to
> >> >> play
> >> >>> it safe since you are about the cut the release you could keep the
> >> "all"
> >> >>> jar for now and do the dependency changes in 5.18.0
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:01 AM Christopher Shannon <
> >> >>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> +1, i've never liked including jetty-all and might as well keep it
> up
> >> >> to
> >> >>>> date with a major release.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I think we are good to go , I did a review of a 5.17.0 snapshot
> build
> >> >> last
> >> >>>> week and things looked good. I will review the official release of
> >> >> course
> >> >>>> but I think we are in good shape.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:45 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> >> >>>> jeanbaptiste.onofre@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> Hi guys,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> FYI, I merged log4j2 support on main for 5.17.0.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> For security reasons and being up to date with Jetty, I would like
> >> to
> >> >>>>> include https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/784
> >> >>>>> Thoughts ?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Regarding the release, I think we are good. If there are no
> >> >>>>> objections, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote tonight (my
> time).
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Regards
> >> >>>>> JB
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:51 PM Robbie Gemmell <
> >> >> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> FWIW it seems like it should be a simple enough revert once the
> >> >> branch
> >> >>>>>> is made. Looks like 3 files (as below) have been changed since
> the
> >> >>>>>> commit in a way that would need a decision upon revert. I guess
> >> >> those
> >> >>>>>> are likely to be keeping the changes from main. Assuming so,
> seems
> >> >>>>>> like "git revert 67256c61b -Xours" would work.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Though, perhaps worth looking closer at
> >> >>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml to see if the
> >> >>>>>> change there (and related property restored in the module pom
> file)
> >> >> is
> >> >>>>>> needed, it doesnt immediately seem that related to the api
> change.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> both modified: activemq-client/pom.xml
> >> >>>>>> both modified:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>
> >>
> activemq-karaf-itest/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/karaf/itest/ActiveMQBrokerNdCamelFeatureTest.java
> >> >>>>>> both modified:
> >> >> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 16:01, Matt Pavlovich <mattrpav@gmail.com
> >
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> ok, lets go
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> >> >>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Matt, the reason to roll back is for what Robbie just said.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> I know the discussion originally was that the first step of
> this
> >> >>>>> would be
> >> >>>>>>>> to include the jar with no impl and just UOE. But I've been
> >> >>>>> convinced
> >> >>>>>>>> after all the discussion the past couple weeks on this that
> >> >> there's
> >> >>>>> no real
> >> >>>>>>>> point to doing so now because A) you already get the same
> >> >> behavior
> >> >>>>> with
> >> >>>>>>>> including the jar yourself and B) there will be real client
> impl
> >> >>>>> changes
> >> >>>>>>>> coming shortly with 5.18.0 it just makes a lot more sense to me
> >> >> to
> >> >>>>> wait and
> >> >>>>>>>> include everything in 5.18.0.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> >> >>>>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> It really doesnt make sense to include changing the API in
> >> >> 5.17.0
> >> >>>>>>>>> without any impl, it would be very odd to retain to me, and
> >> >> also
> >> >>>>> quite
> >> >>>>>>>>> misleading. It may also unnecessarily inconvenience people
> that
> >> >>>>> have
> >> >>>>>>>>> previously adapted their builds to other bits including a
> >> >>>>>>>>> likely-different 2.0 API artifact if they needed it and
> >> >> excluding
> >> >>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>>> 1.1 api, into updating their excludes despite no impl change.
> >> >> It
> >> >>>>> just
> >> >>>>>>>>> makes sense to unwind it.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 14:30, Matt Pavlovich <
> >> >> mattrpav@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Hey Chris-
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> I believe the JMS 2.0 impl is in good shape (fighting one
> test
> >> >>>>> that
> >> >>>>>>>>> works-locally-fails-on-Apache-CI fun!). Given the desire to
> get
> >> >>>>> 5.17.0 out
> >> >>>>>>>>> soon, I can get behind allowing more time for others to review
> >> >> and
> >> >>>>> roll
> >> >>>>>>>>> with it in 5.18.0.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> How about keeping AMQ-7309 in 5.17.0 and go forward with your
> >> >>>>> suggestion
> >> >>>>>>>>> of moving on to 5.18.0 with JMS 2.0, Jakarta updates, etc?
> >> >>>>> AMQ-7309 is well
> >> >>>>>>>>> reviewed and been merged for 4 months.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Matt
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 2:10 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> >> >>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> In terms of maintenance if we get out 2.18, 2.19, etc then
> >> >> 2.17
> >> >>>>> can
> >> >>>>>>>>> just
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> get important fixes or be made EOL and we can move on. Long
> >> >> lived
> >> >>>>>>>>> branches
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> and support are not necessary if we keep up with more
> >> >> frequent
> >> >>>>>>>>> releases.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> 2.17.0 is at a logical cut off point where it's at now and
> >> >> I'm
> >> >>>>>>>>> definitely
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> not in favor of adding something brand new (Jakarta changes)
> >> >> last
> >> >>>>>>>>> minute
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> and I doubt others are either.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> So again..it's time to move on. As everyone else already
> >> >> seems
> >> >>>>> to be in
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> agreement with (JB, Tim, Robbie) let's just do the release
> >> >> this
> >> >>>>> week
> >> >>>>>>>>> with
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> the current changes and then move on to 2.18.0 with JMS 2.0,
> >> >>>>> Jakarta
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> updates, etc.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:49 PM Matt Pavlovich <
> >> >>>>> mattrpav@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey All-
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I get the idea that getting a JDK 11-based released is a
> >> >> good
> >> >>>>> thing,
> >> >>>>>>>>> but I
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> also think we should consider the jakarta alignment as part
> >> >> of
> >> >>>>> what
> >> >>>>>>>>> active
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> branches are supported. This is the path other projects
> have
> >> >>>>> taken and
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> helps users align things when they are assembling pieces
> for
> >> >>>>> their
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> environment
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> If we go with the proposed plan in this thread-- we add JDK
> >> >> 11,
> >> >>>>> but
> >> >>>>>>>>> do not
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> move the ball forward on anything jakarta related — we add
> >> >>>>> another
> >> >>>>>>>>> active
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> branch to maintain. As log4j showed us, having a bunch of
> >> >> active
> >> >>>>>>>>> branches
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> out there is a lot of work when it is time to crank out
> >> >> security
> >> >>>>>>>>> fixes.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, keeping up with Jetty and other dependencies
> >> >> is
> >> >>>>> going to
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> become more difficult if we do not start taking steps to
> >> >> align
> >> >>>>> JDK +
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> jakarta in supported branches.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I also feel that the current status of the JMS 2.0 phased
> >> >>>>>>>>> implementation
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> is closer to done than the amount of work to revert
> >> >> AMQ-7309.
> >> >>>>> PR-729
> >> >>>>>>>>> has
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 200+ test cases and has addressed all feedback as of this
> >> >>>>> morning.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> JMS 2.0 tested and validated:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - All destinations (queue, topic, temp-topic, temp-queue)
> >> >> and
> >> >>>>> all
> >> >>>>>>>>> message
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> types (bytes, map, object, stream, and text)
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - All message property types (bytes, string, int, float,
> >> >> double,
> >> >>>>>>>>> short,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> etc.) including min+max data ranges
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Foreign message support
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Range checking on priority and deliveryMode
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Topic Durable Subscriber (JMS v1.x alignment)
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Pavlovich
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 8:16 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> >> >>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt @Robbie @Tim is it ok for you to have 5.17.0 with
> >> >>>>> Spring5,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j2, JDK11 and include JMS2 in 5.18.0 that can happen
> >> >>>>> quickly ?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:09 PM Christopher Shannon
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 on moving forward without JMS 2.0 until 5.18.0.
> >> >> The
> >> >>>>> reality
> >> >>>>>>>>> is
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> there is no consensus to keep it in 5.17.0. There are
> >> >> multiple
> >> >>>>> people
> >> >>>>>>>>> who
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> do not want to include it in 5.17.0 so it's time to move on
> >> >>>>> without.
> >> >>>>>>>>> We
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> also need to revert the commits from
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7309 as there is
> >> >> no
> >> >>>>> reason
> >> >>>>>>>>> to
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> include that now.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I say go ahead with the release and vote (after
> >> >> wrapping
> >> >>>>> things
> >> >>>>>>>>> up
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> including reverting that AMQ-7309 JMS 2 stuff).
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty tired of the back and forth and fighting over
> >> >>>>> version
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> numbers to be honest and just want to move on. It's not
> >> >>>>> productive to
> >> >>>>>>>>> keep
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> arguing anymore over a version...5.18.0 can literally go
> out
> >> >>>>> whenever
> >> >>>>>>>>> we
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> want.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 8:50 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> >> >>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quick update about 5.17.0 release:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I fixed/squash log4j2 update PR
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/662). I think
> >> >> it's
> >> >>>>> OK
> >> >>>>>>>>> (I'm
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting for the end of Jenkins).
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Apache POM 25 update PR
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Spring 5.3.16 update PR
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, ActiveMQ 5.17.0 is almost ready from this
> standpoint.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I would like to start the vote asap, It would be
> >> >> great to
> >> >>>>> act
> >> >>>>>>>>> about
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS2. Do you want me to start with different options ?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:55 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> >> >>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I worked on the log4j2 update PR this weekend, fixing
> >> >>>>> almost all
> >> >>>>>>>>> unit
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests using a custom appender. I just have to fix the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-web-demo test and squash, and the PR will be
> >> >> good
> >> >>>>> to be
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged. I will do that today.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, later today and tomorrow I will work on using
> >> >> jetty
> >> >>>>> modules
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of jetty-all and update to Jetty 9.4.45.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do a pass on Jira and PRs, especially the ones
> >> >> from
> >> >>>>> Matt.
> >> >>>>>>>>> @Matt
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please ping me on slack to check together the
> >> >>>>> status of
> >> >>>>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs ?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding this, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote
> >> >> this
> >> >>>>>>>>> Thursday if
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no objections.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
>