@JB Let me know if it would be helpful to look at AMQ-7309 revert or other release tasks. I’ll be online and on Slack all day.
> On Feb 28, 2022, at 9:04 AM, Christopher Shannon > <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Good catch Robbie, I forgot about still needing to revert 7309 to keep all > the JMS 2.0 stuff in 5.18.0 > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:56 AM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I would say the same things (well, did on the PR). Either way, only >> other thing to do seems to be creating a branch and reverting 7309. >> >> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 14:19, Christopher Shannon >> <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I will say that we can update the version of Jetty but if you want to >> play >>> it safe since you are about the cut the release you could keep the "all" >>> jar for now and do the dependency changes in 5.18.0 >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:01 AM Christopher Shannon < >>> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> +1, i've never liked including jetty-all and might as well keep it up >> to >>>> date with a major release. >>>> >>>> I think we are good to go , I did a review of a 5.17.0 snapshot build >> last >>>> week and things looked good. I will review the official release of >> course >>>> but I think we are in good shape. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:45 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>>> jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi guys, >>>>> >>>>> FYI, I merged log4j2 support on main for 5.17.0. >>>>> >>>>> For security reasons and being up to date with Jetty, I would like to >>>>> include https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/784 >>>>> Thoughts ? >>>>> >>>>> Regarding the release, I think we are good. If there are no >>>>> objections, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote tonight (my time). >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> JB >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:51 PM Robbie Gemmell < >> robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> FWIW it seems like it should be a simple enough revert once the >> branch >>>>>> is made. Looks like 3 files (as below) have been changed since the >>>>>> commit in a way that would need a decision upon revert. I guess >> those >>>>>> are likely to be keeping the changes from main. Assuming so, seems >>>>>> like "git revert 67256c61b -Xours" would work. >>>>>> >>>>>> Though, perhaps worth looking closer at >>>>>> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml to see if the >>>>>> change there (and related property restored in the module pom file) >> is >>>>>> needed, it doesnt immediately seem that related to the api change. >>>>>> >>>>>> both modified: activemq-client/pom.xml >>>>>> both modified: >>>>>> >>>>> >> activemq-karaf-itest/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/karaf/itest/ActiveMQBrokerNdCamelFeatureTest.java >>>>>> both modified: >> activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 16:01, Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ok, lets go >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Christopher Shannon < >>>>> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Matt, the reason to roll back is for what Robbie just said. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know the discussion originally was that the first step of this >>>>> would be >>>>>>>> to include the jar with no impl and just UOE. But I've been >>>>> convinced >>>>>>>> after all the discussion the past couple weeks on this that >> there's >>>>> no real >>>>>>>> point to doing so now because A) you already get the same >> behavior >>>>> with >>>>>>>> including the jar yourself and B) there will be real client impl >>>>> changes >>>>>>>> coming shortly with 5.18.0 it just makes a lot more sense to me >> to >>>>> wait and >>>>>>>> include everything in 5.18.0. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM Robbie Gemmell < >>>>> robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It really doesnt make sense to include changing the API in >> 5.17.0 >>>>>>>>> without any impl, it would be very odd to retain to me, and >> also >>>>> quite >>>>>>>>> misleading. It may also unnecessarily inconvenience people that >>>>> have >>>>>>>>> previously adapted their builds to other bits including a >>>>>>>>> likely-different 2.0 API artifact if they needed it and >> excluding >>>>> the >>>>>>>>> 1.1 api, into updating their excludes despite no impl change. >> It >>>>> just >>>>>>>>> makes sense to unwind it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 14:30, Matt Pavlovich < >> mattr...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hey Chris- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I believe the JMS 2.0 impl is in good shape (fighting one test >>>>> that >>>>>>>>> works-locally-fails-on-Apache-CI fun!). Given the desire to get >>>>> 5.17.0 out >>>>>>>>> soon, I can get behind allowing more time for others to review >> and >>>>> roll >>>>>>>>> with it in 5.18.0. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How about keeping AMQ-7309 in 5.17.0 and go forward with your >>>>> suggestion >>>>>>>>> of moving on to 5.18.0 with JMS 2.0, Jakarta updates, etc? >>>>> AMQ-7309 is well >>>>>>>>> reviewed and been merged for 4 months. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> Matt >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 2:10 PM, Christopher Shannon < >>>>>>>>> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In terms of maintenance if we get out 2.18, 2.19, etc then >> 2.17 >>>>> can >>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>> get important fixes or be made EOL and we can move on. Long >> lived >>>>>>>>> branches >>>>>>>>>>> and support are not necessary if we keep up with more >> frequent >>>>>>>>> releases. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2.17.0 is at a logical cut off point where it's at now and >> I'm >>>>>>>>> definitely >>>>>>>>>>> not in favor of adding something brand new (Jakarta changes) >> last >>>>>>>>> minute >>>>>>>>>>> and I doubt others are either. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So again..it's time to move on. As everyone else already >> seems >>>>> to be in >>>>>>>>>>> agreement with (JB, Tim, Robbie) let's just do the release >> this >>>>> week >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>> the current changes and then move on to 2.18.0 with JMS 2.0, >>>>> Jakarta >>>>>>>>>>> updates, etc. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:49 PM Matt Pavlovich < >>>>> mattr...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey All- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I get the idea that getting a JDK 11-based released is a >> good >>>>> thing, >>>>>>>>> but I >>>>>>>>>>>> also think we should consider the jakarta alignment as part >> of >>>>> what >>>>>>>>> active >>>>>>>>>>>> branches are supported. This is the path other projects have >>>>> taken and >>>>>>>>>>>> helps users align things when they are assembling pieces for >>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>> environment >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If we go with the proposed plan in this thread-- we add JDK >> 11, >>>>> but >>>>>>>>> do not >>>>>>>>>>>> move the ball forward on anything jakarta related — we add >>>>> another >>>>>>>>> active >>>>>>>>>>>> branch to maintain. As log4j showed us, having a bunch of >> active >>>>>>>>> branches >>>>>>>>>>>> out there is a lot of work when it is time to crank out >> security >>>>>>>>> fixes. >>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, keeping up with Jetty and other dependencies >> is >>>>> going to >>>>>>>>>>>> become more difficult if we do not start taking steps to >> align >>>>> JDK + >>>>>>>>>>>> jakarta in supported branches. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I also feel that the current status of the JMS 2.0 phased >>>>>>>>> implementation >>>>>>>>>>>> is closer to done than the amount of work to revert >> AMQ-7309. >>>>> PR-729 >>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>> 200+ test cases and has addressed all feedback as of this >>>>> morning. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> JMS 2.0 tested and validated: >>>>>>>>>>>> - All destinations (queue, topic, temp-topic, temp-queue) >> and >>>>> all >>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>> types (bytes, map, object, stream, and text) >>>>>>>>>>>> - All message property types (bytes, string, int, float, >> double, >>>>>>>>> short, >>>>>>>>>>>> etc.) including min+max data ranges >>>>>>>>>>>> - Foreign message support >>>>>>>>>>>> - Range checking on priority and deliveryMode >>>>>>>>>>>> - Topic Durable Subscriber (JMS v1.x alignment) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Pavlovich >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 8:16 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>>>> j...@nanthrax.net> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> @Matt @Robbie @Tim is it ok for you to have 5.17.0 with >>>>> Spring5, >>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j2, JDK11 and include JMS2 in 5.18.0 that can happen >>>>> quickly ? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:09 PM Christopher Shannon >>>>>>>>>>>>> <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 on moving forward without JMS 2.0 until 5.18.0. >> The >>>>> reality >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> there is no consensus to keep it in 5.17.0. There are >> multiple >>>>> people >>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>>>> do not want to include it in 5.17.0 so it's time to move on >>>>> without. >>>>>>>>> We >>>>>>>>>>>> also need to revert the commits from >>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7309 as there is >> no >>>>> reason >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> include that now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I say go ahead with the release and vote (after >> wrapping >>>>> things >>>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>>>>> including reverting that AMQ-7309 JMS 2 stuff). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty tired of the back and forth and fighting over >>>>> version >>>>>>>>>>>> numbers to be honest and just want to move on. It's not >>>>> productive to >>>>>>>>> keep >>>>>>>>>>>> arguing anymore over a version...5.18.0 can literally go out >>>>> whenever >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>> want. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 8:50 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>>>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quick update about 5.17.0 release: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I fixed/squash log4j2 update PR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/662). I think >> it's >>>>> OK >>>>>>>>> (I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting for the end of Jenkins). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Apache POM 25 update PR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I'm creating Spring 5.3.16 update PR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, ActiveMQ 5.17.0 is almost ready from this standpoint. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I would like to start the vote asap, It would be >> great to >>>>> act >>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMS2. Do you want me to start with different options ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:55 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>>>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I worked on the log4j2 update PR this weekend, fixing >>>>> almost all >>>>>>>>> unit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests using a custom appender. I just have to fix the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activemq-web-demo test and squash, and the PR will be >> good >>>>> to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged. I will do that today. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, later today and tomorrow I will work on using >> jetty >>>>> modules >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of jetty-all and update to Jetty 9.4.45. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do a pass on Jira and PRs, especially the ones >> from >>>>> Matt. >>>>>>>>> @Matt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please ping me on slack to check together the >>>>> status of >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding this, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote >> this >>>>>>>>> Thursday if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no objections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
