Hi, I agree to cut both 5.16.0 and 5.15.13 and I propose to wait next week before to start the vote.
Anyway, I need some days to prepare the release (I’m working on some improvements, reviewing PR, etc). Thanks again ! Regards JB > Le 6 mai 2020 à 12:16, Christopher Shannon <[email protected]> > a écrit : > > JB, > > I will also add that I am out of the office util Monday but next week I can > do the 5.16.0 release work if you don't have time to do it before then. > 5.16.0 really needs to go out sooner rather than later. > > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 6:10 AM Christopher Shannon < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> As Robbie stated, 5.16.0 should go out as is so option 1 is the best one >> to me. We need to cut off non blocking changes and get the release out as >> it has been a long time coming. As long as it is runtime compatible with >> JDK 8+ and runs fine on JDK 11 then that will work. >> >> In 5.17.0 we can remove LevelDB and support JDK 11 builds. Hopefully we >> can get this release out faster as it would be nice to be able to >> finally use JDK 11 to build. We have the option in 5.17.0 to still target >> JDK 8 or we could just target 11+, but either way JDK 11 needs to work to >> build. >> >> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 4:45 AM Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> As with the other times this was discussed, I think 1) makes most >>> sense still. If you think the bits are in a releaseable state now, >>> then it seems sensible to proceed with the existing stable base rather >>> than expanding and likely delaying the release yet again. Releasing >>> gets the finished changes people have been waiting for out, and you >>> can start fresh on big changes for the next version at the front of a >>> release cycle rather than lumping them in at the end. The next set of >>> changes can then arrive on their own however soon they are ready for >>> release, in a smaller targetted release. >>> >>> On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 06:31, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I would like to release ActiveMQ 5.15.13 and 5.16.0. >>>> >>>> They include fixes affecting several users (on http proxy, on xstream >>> CPU use, etc) and couple of improvements. >>>> >>>> About 5.16.0, we have two options: >>>> 1. I’m releasing as it is: it’s JDK 11 compliant at runtime, but the >>> build is not fully JDK 11. >>>> 2. I’m removing leveldb, scala, and update the branch to fully build >>> with JDK 11. I can postpone this for 5.17.x with JMS 2.x support (already >>> started). >>>> >>>> Thoughts ? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> JB >>> >>
