Yes. Sort of. There was a regression for persistent=false which breaks it for advisories.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5665 I was *hoping* it fixed the issue. If it doesn’t I was going to write a test and then git bisect to find where it broke. One other problem I ran into: https://github.com/apache/activemq Does not have the source for 6.0.0 (unless I’m missing something.) master is 5.11 snapshot and there are no 6.0.0 branches.. The other issue I had, was that a lot of the modules changed. So I was trying to track down the source to figure out which modules have been renamed but of course I can’t find the source :-P We’re still trying to deploy a pretty large ActiveMQ install. Right now it’s on 8 servers and has about 80GB of messages. 5.10.x has had a number of issues for us. I fixed two significant ones but they weren’t merged for 6.0.0. The pull request was for 5.10.x and 5.11.x but it seems to have been left behind? It was about 2 days worth of work and fixes a pretty major scalability issue for ActiveMQ with a large number of queues. I’m also pretty convinced I’ve found another bug whereby the entire queue serves messages at about 1/100th the correct speed and queues grow very large with nothing being served. I was going to try to get on 5.11 or 6.0.0 but I can’t with the above bug in advisories. I don’t mind stepping in and fixing these issues btw. But I need to figure out the right way to contribute so my pull requests don’t go into purgatory. Not pointing figures.. I just need to figure out a way to avoid having my work left behind. Maybe officially rejecting the pull request with a reason would help? Purgatory and lost work seems to be a far worst situation than a ‘no, we’re not going to merge that because of X’ because I can fix this situation! :) If I know how to resolve these I’ll take my patches out of the graveyard and port them to 6.0.0 and then get the AMQ-5665 fixed and get a pull request for that as well. Kevin On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > At this point we need java8 to build the source, but the target > compilation still java 1.7 > > We are not using any java8 features at this point. We kind of stepped > back on being strict about java8. We could have updated the docs but > since we kept java8 to build the source we are still recommending > java8. > > > The testsuite is running on java8 now, but it has been on java7 up > till recently. > > > I would recommend java8 as java7 is almost EOL but it still safe to > use java7 on the binaries at this point. > > > Are you evaluating it already? We are looking for feedback about it... > we are still under voting for the release.. so any feedback helps! > > > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Kevin Burton <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just curious. We’re still on Java 1.7. I assume Java 8 features are > > actually used. Might be bad news for us but I can see it being a > > reasonable requirement at this point. > > > > -- > > > > Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com > > Location: *San Francisco, CA* > > blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com > > … or check out my Google+ profile > > <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts> > > <http://spinn3r.com> > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic > http://community.jboss.org/people/[email protected] > http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com > -- Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com Location: *San Francisco, CA* blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com … or check out my Google+ profile <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts> <http://spinn3r.com>
