+1 (non-binding) I checked: Web console functionality
On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 3:17 AM Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > I checked things out as follows: > - Verified the signature and checksum files. > - Checked for LICENCE + NOTICE files present in the archives. > - Checked headers in the source archive with: mvn apache-rat:check > - Ran the source build [only] on JDK 21. > - Ran the Qpid JMS 2.9.0 HelloWorld example against a broker started > from the staged tar.gz binary on JDK 21. > > Robbie > > On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 at 16:07, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I also think it makes sense to just update the notes to mention it for > > 6.3.0 instead (or a future 6.2.x, given there is no change in the > > existing stuff, or from the new stuff unless you ask to use it) given > > everything you discussed below. > > > > On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 at 14:39, Christopher Shannon > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I didn't realize that CI was still only using JDK 17 and I agree that > > > should be bumped to 21. The release is already done and so far looks > fine > > > to me (I was about to vote +1 until I saw this issue come up) so > because of > > > that the simplest thing is just to update the release notes for that > > > feature and move it to 6.3.0 so we don't hold up 6.2.0. The plan is to > > > release 6.3.0 quicker anyways and it isn't like any should be using > Virtual > > > threads right now before JDK 24 because of the pinning issue. And > ActiveMQ > > > probably doesn't even work with JDK 24 or JDK 25 yet for the same > reason > > > Artemis needed to be fixed. (The Subject class and scoped variables, > etc) > > > > > > This was Matt's feature, so as long as Matt is ok moving it to 6.3.0, I > > > think we can just keep the release as is. > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 9:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I would add that both enforcer AND Jenkins should have been updated > to > > > > JDK21 min to reflect that. > > > > > > > > As a reminder, the purpose of 6.2.0 is mostly about Jetty and Spring > > > > CVE (updates). That's why I'm proposing to remove VirtualThread from > > > > the Release Notes, and move forward with this RC. > > > > > > > > However, I'm totally fine to cancel this RC, update enforcer and > > > > Jenkins and do a new RC with JDK21. > > > > > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > JB > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:04 PM Christopher Shannon > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -1 for now until we figure out the situation with the virtual > thread > > > > stuff. > > > > > We probably should rebuild with JDK 21 because 6.2.0 includes the > virtual > > > > > thread feature. The other option as Robbie said is we remove that > part > > > > from > > > > > the release notes and include it for 6.3.0 only. > > > > > > > > > > This same issue just came up with Artemis recently (although JDK > 25). The > > > > > intent here is that we only require JDK 17 for runtime but if a > user is > > > > > optionally using JDK 21+ then with the multi release jar the new > virtual > > > > > thread feature is available. > > > > > Because the Virtual thread stuff is there with the multi release > jar we > > > > > must build the release with JDK 21+ when doing the actual release. > > > > > > > > > > We should use the maven enforcer plugin to require JDK 21 to be > used > > > > during > > > > > releases to prevent this issue in the future. We don't need to > require it > > > > > during all builds, but when doing the official release it needs to > be > > > > used > > > > > so all the correct jars are built. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 8:58 AM Francois Papon < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > François > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 09/11/2025 à 13:44, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit : > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose Apache ActiveMQ Classic 6.2.0 to your vote. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a new major milestone for ActiveMQ Classic bringing > about 200 > > > > > > > fixes and improvements, like: > > > > > > > - several fixes and improvements on KahaDB > > > > > > > - several fixes and improvements on the client and openwire > > > > > > > - several improvements on the Web Console > > > > > > > - a fix on the runtime config plugin (about network connector > > > > ordering) > > > > > > > - performance improvements > > > > > > > - A bunch of dependency updates, especially Spring 6.2.12, > Jetty > > > > > > > 11.0.26, Shiro 2.0.6, Camel 4.14.2, Jackson 2.20.1, Jolokia > 2.4.0 and > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > - and much much more :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can take a look on the Release Notes for details: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12354379 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Staging Maven Repository: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1443/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Staging Dist Repository: > > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq/6.2.0/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Git tag: > > > > > > > activemq-6.2.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please vote to approve this release: > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Approve the release > > > > > > > [ ] 0 I don't care > > > > > > > [ ] -1 Don't approve the release (please provide specific > comment) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > For further information, visit: > https://activemq.apache.org/contact > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > For further information, visit: > https://activemq.apache.org/contact > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact > > >
