Hi Justin, I am wondering whether you have already cut RC5?
If not, I would like to request the inclusion of changes made in revision http://svn.apache.org/r1485163 fixing QPID-4876. It is a one line change which does not effect core broker functionality but it could potentially save a lot of cursing and user frustration when making mistakes on adding of Virtual Host into Java Broker dynamically :) If RC5 is already cut then it is fine to not include the changes into 0.22. Kind Regards, Alex On 20 May 2013 14:08, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote: > Done. > > (As I'm sure is obvious from the JIRA and commit traffic, I also merged > some other small bug fixes and improvements in keeping with the previous > 'break it you fix it' discussion) > > Robbie > > On 20 May 2013 11:24, Justin Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Please go ahead. If we end up being ready, I'll produce the new RC later > > today. > > > > Justin > > > > On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Robbie Gemmell > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In case it isn't clear that was me effectively asking permission, as > I'd > > > rather not merge code changes to the branch unless they are going to be > > > included. > > > > > > Robbie > > > > > > On 17 May 2013 16:56, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Justin, > > >> > > >> In some final testing of the Java broker we came across an issue we > feel > > >> warrants blocker status, and so would like to request another RC be > cut > > on > > >> Monday before calling the vote in order to allow including the fix in > > the > > >> release. > > >> > > >> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4858 > > >> http://svn.apache.org/r1483866 > > >> > > >> There are more specifics on the JIRA, but the short story is that due > to > > >> changes made in this development cycle it became possible to configure > > the > > >> brokers HTTP management port(s) in an ambiguous way that suggested SSL > > was > > >> in use on the port when it was not, a situation we would obviously > like > > to > > >> prevent for reasons. > > >> > > >> The change is fairly simple and involves removal of some inconsistency > > in > > >> configuration between the HTTP and non-HTTP ports, removing the > > ambiguity > > >> that lead to the issue. Aside from the obvious security-related > benefit, > > >> making the change in this release would also be beneficial to avoid a > > need > > >> for explicit handling of the configuration change during upgrades to > > future > > >> releases. > > >> > > >> Robbie > > >> > > >> On 16 May 2013 22:46, Justin Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi, everyone. Here is RC4 from revision 1483543: > > >>> > > >>> http://people.apache.org/~jross/qpid-0.22-rc4/ > > >>> http://people.apache.org/~jross/qpid-0.22-rc4-testing.txt > > >>> > > >>> My testing on Fedora 16 x86-64 produced no failures. Once again, > > >>> thanks to all those who have tested previous RCs and reported the > > >>> outcome. Mick has posted to the list about some low-frequency > > >>> failures in repeated test runs. Those are important, but they are > not > > >>> at this point considered blockers for the release. > > >>> > > >>> My plan now is to let RC4 settle for a few days and wait for any > signs > > >>> of trouble. If all goes well, I'll start the release vote on Monday > > >>> next week and close it that Friday. > > >>> > > >>> This release candidate is signed. The bits in RC4, if approved for > > >>> release, will be the GA bits. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks! > > >>> Justin > > >>> > > >>> --- > > >>> 0.22 release page: https://cwiki.apache.org/qpid/022-release.html > > >>> > > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >
