Where are we on the release timetable now? Looks like AMQ-7309 still needs to be reverted and the PR is still open for jetty.
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's probably fine to change since the uber jar can't be used anymore, as > long as the tests all pass for things like websocket and the web console > fires up of course, etc. > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:37 AM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> @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 >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>
