I don't really like the toggle option. I think it just overly complicates it for no reason. I think you either change it or don't so I think it makes sense to skip it for 5.17 as we are trying to finalize the release and then target it for 5.18.0 and make the changes without any flags. We should be going to a faster release process so I wouldn't expect it to take too long.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:33 PM Étienne Hossack <activ...@hossack.me> wrote: > Hey all, > > There's been a few PRs open for > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514 (specifically AMQ-8317) > that have not had traction in a while. I can rebase/re-open them, but it > would be good to get the ball rolling on these in an earlier release so > that the removal can happen in a subsequent release. > > They originally targeted 5.17.0 and I'd like to still target that version. > > Of course it was suggested from JB that we don't take the toggle approach > of AMQ-8317 simply change the logging, but regardless of the approach I'd > appreciate the approved PRs not to simply hang there :) > > Cheers, > Étienne > > On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, at 7:01 AM, Matt Pavlovich wrote: > > @jb- no problem. I’ll ping you on slack to coordinate the revert. > > > >> On Mar 1, 2022, at 7:32 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi > >> > >> About jetty PR, I gonna merge it. > >> > >> For AMQ-7309, I guess Matt should revert it, right ? > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >> Le mar. 1 mars 2022 à 13:43, Christopher Shannon < > >> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> a écrit : > >> > >>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> >
