JL- I’ve reviewed 2 PRs and am marching on the others.
One thought on stalebot: I agree that the stablebot is a little aggressive— do we have options for it to skip WIP or Draft PRs? It is fair for some large things to take longer than 30days Thanks! Matt > On Mar 2, 2026, at 9:47 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thanks Jean-Baptiste. > > There is no rush per se. > > I understand we all have paid work to do to feed our families and pay the > bills. I'm not blaming anyone and hopefully no one is upset. > > The last improvement highlights an issue with our current way of working, > in my view. I wasn't heavily involved when Artemis was still in the AtiveMQ > TLP. Maybe the pool of contributors was bigger, but currently, most reviews > come from JB, Matt and Chris. And I can't say how much I appreciate your > continous help. > > We require reviews to merge. We have a bot to close stale PRs. Great. Now > if we start closing PRs not because they are stale but because the project > organization prevents timely reviews, we have something to rework. > > That was the intent of my email. My apologies if it was not perceived that > way. > > -- > Jean-Louis Monteiro > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 12:25 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Thanks for the update. >> >> Sorry I’m a bit late on the reviews as I was travelling during the weekend. >> >> I will take a look today. >> >> Thanks ! >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> Le lun. 2 mars 2026 à 04:55, Jean-Louis Monteiro <[email protected] >>> >> a écrit : >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Our setup requires PRs to be reviewed, which I think is good. We also >> have >>> a bot to mark old PRs as stale and closes them, which is also a good >> thing. >>> >>> Now, we need to be diligent reviewing PRs. For instance, I had to remove >>> the stale label from my PRs to prevent them from being closed. >>> >>> I'd appreciate some help reviewing my PRs if possible. >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/1541 --> MQTT module changes >>> similar to the other modules. It aims to run eligible tests in parallel. >> At >>> first glance, there is no breaking change. We are running the same tests >> as >>> before. We've merged all other PRs, so this module is the same. CI is >>> green. >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/1661 --> simple PR to enable >>> wiring >>> the SSL context into the ManagementContext. A user opened another PR. I'm >>> not sure if we need both. This relates to feature request AMQ-9857 >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/1711 --> flaky tests again. I >> keep >>> opening and fixing tests as we go. Sometimes, tests require various >>> incremental fixes. I apologize for that but it's difficult to reproduce >> the >>> exact conditions locally to make the tests fail. >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/1712 --> Jakarta TCK setup into >>> its >>> own module. No impact, TCK won't run unless you add the profile. >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/1666 --> race condition on the >>> exception and transport listener. >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/1728 --> async send proposal. >>> Willing to get feedback because it's a production change to support async >>> send for JMS 3.1 which I can pass with it. >>> >>> >>> They are all green, so I'd appraciate some help to review them. >>> >>> -- >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro >>> http://www.tomitribe.com >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
