I've created the 3.10.x branch based upon 3.9.x branch code. I'll start focusing patches towards that target.
Cheers, Jamie On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 2:20 PM Timothy Bish <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 12/7/18 12:48 PM, Jamie G. wrote: > > Is that 3.10.x branch possibly local to your environment? > > > > I'm not seeing it on my pull... > > Ah, yes, never pushed, so should be good to go then on new branch > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 1:52 PM Timothy Bish <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 12/7/18 12:01 PM, Jamie G. wrote: > >>> Thank you for the additional background information. > >>> > >>> So creating a 3.10.x branch off of current 3.9.x branch, than merging > >>> fixes/features to that branch would be acceptable? > >> I checked and there already is a 3.10.x branch which I must have been > >> intending to switch to at some point. You might be best to just drop > >> that branch and recut from current 3.9.x as that would be the best > >> starting point for patches. Once moved you might also want to check if > >> moving the supported APR lib versions up wasn't also a good idea given > >> the time between releases. > >> > >> I think there is some other work you might need to do which is that on > >> quite a few distros now the cppunit stuff won't build because they've > >> removed the package configuration script and gone to PKG configs so you > >> might want to test on more than one distro and or version # (I recall > >> some reports of problems on Fedora releases after 25 or 26) > >> > >> Also if you aren't testing on Windows you should build there and test as > >> well because that will often show you issues that need addressing before > >> release. Given the age of the code I'd be surprised if there weren't > >> some build and test issues that needed addressing. > >> > >>> Once a collection of patches have been applied to the 3.10.x, is there > >>> a release process that out lines how to get this published? > >>> > >>> http://activemq.apache.org/cms/creating-distributions.html seems to be > >>> pre-github. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Jamie > >>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 1:10 PM Timothy Bish <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> My bad, I missed the CC. to dev on this so ignore my comment on keeping > >>>> in dev. :) > >>>> > >>>> On 12/7/18 11:17 AM, Jamie G. wrote: > >>>>> Hi Tim, > >>>>> > >>>>> Can i make master 3.10.0-SNAPSHOT or 4.0.0-SNAPSHOT? Which is preferred? > >>>>> > >>>>> In testing code on master the test suites passed on Linux & Mac OSX. > >>>>> Can you provide more details as to how master is not in a releasable > >>>>> state? Are there a collection of Jira cards reflecting what needs to > >>>>> be done to make Master releasable? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 12:29 PM Timothy Bish <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> On 12/5/18 6:44 PM, Jamie G. wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi All, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I've started looking into a number of open cards on AMQ CPP client. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I've noticed that master is still 3.9.0-snapshot, when it likely > >>>>>>> should be 3.10.0-SNAPSHOT now. > >>>>>> Master is not in a releasable state so all work you plan to do to > >>>>>> create > >>>>>> patch releases should be directed to the patch branches unless you plan > >>>>>> on working on getting master into a releasable state which would be 4.0 > >>>>>> but I doubt you plan to commit that much time to it so I'd suggest > >>>>>> planning on a 3.x release. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> One supplied patch would bump openssl version to 1.0.2 from 0.9.8. > >>>>>>> Would that bump be sufficient cause to increment the minor version? > >>>>>>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQCPP-619) > >>>>>> 3.9.x is know to work on that older release so publishing a release in > >>>>>> that series would break the compatibility that would be expected from > >>>>>> that version range and so it would not be a drop in replacement. The > >>>>>> more sensible thing to do is to move onto a 3.10.x release series where > >>>>>> you break that know working range and state that it now requires > >>>>>> OpenSSL > >>>>>> 1.0.x or whatever is the acceptable version. That way a hotfix release > >>>>>> of 3.9.x is still possible for anyone stuck on old system. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Once these patches are reviewed, and accepted - is there a release > >>>>>>> process for the AMQ CPP client? > >>>>>> You would need to update autoconf versions numbers for the release, > >>>>>> updates code to reflect the release numbers and other things I'm > >>>>>> probably forgetting. Then you need to test on windows, linux and mac > >>>>>> with both SSL libs and no SSL libs installed to ensure the changes > >>>>>> don't > >>>>>> break the build and test process. There are both unit tests and > >>>>>> integration tests that you need to get building and run to validate > >>>>>> things work on each platform. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Once you validated the code works then you can you the mvn build to > >>>>>> have > >>>>>> a set of archive built which you can then sign and checksum for > >>>>>> release. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Tim, since you did a lot of work on this, your opinion would gladly be > >>>>>>> appreciated. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>> Jamie > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Tim Bish > >>>>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Tim Bish > >>>> > >> -- > >> Tim Bish > >> > > -- > Tim Bish >
