OK, next time, I won’t send any update and just cut the release ;) Regards JB
> Le 22 juin 2020 à 16:44, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Emails noting '5.16.0 soon' are getting a bit tedious given its > description many times over several months as being ready for vote > 'now', 'tomorrow', or 'next week'. > > It's ok to actually release it. Other version numbers are available > for future changes. > > Robbie > > On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 14:23, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi guys, >> >> After 5.15.13, I’m preparing ActiveMQ 5.16.0 with JDK 11 runtime and preview >> on JMS 2.0 (as requested on Jira by some users). >> >> I will share more details soon about timing and 5.16.0 content. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >>> Le 16 mai 2020 à 07:24, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> a écrit : >>> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> Just to let you know that I’m still working on these releases preparation. >>> I identify couple of issues I would like to fix. >>> >>> I plan to submit the releases to vote next week. >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>>> Le 6 mai 2020 à 07:31, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> a écrit : >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >>
