I've also merged https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQCPP-619 into branch 3.10.x, taking care to ensure no tabs slipped into the patch :)
Cheers, Jamie On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 2:44 PM Jamie G. <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > >
