Github user stanlyDoge commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2020
Aha, thanks for explanation!
---
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1793
@michaelandrepearce There is another testsuite just for openwire.
somethings that we inherited from activemq5.. it's under
./tests/activemq5-unit-tests
that one was
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1793
i Got a lot of test failures previous, but it seemed a lot better when I
ran a suite a few weeks back, is that since his latest changes and work that
you ran it? Iâm just
You can cleanup your commits with a git rebase -i HEAD~
Squash them accordingly... etc... it's an easy operation.
Complementing what I said earlier... Many committs are ok.. as long as
they are semantically correct... Intermediate committs that you did
along your day should be cleaned up and
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1793
this is a nice start.. but it will require some work... a lot of tests are
broken... the converters need to be updated... (especially on the openwire
testsuite).
---
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1793
@clebertsuconic you able to give @raisaurabh a pr with what you mean.
Iâve gone though it myself and in general looks fine from what I can tell, eg
it has a check to see if
I would prefer a squash before merging.. or at least some cleanup
before people submit a PR.
When reviewing a PR.. it's almost impossible to make a correlation
between the committs...
example commit1: added a line, commit 2: removed that same line... it
would make a PR review useless and more
The only comment here is we will need to stop squashing our commits in general
eg be happy a pr may have many commits I’m happy to do this btw, eg internally
in our org we don’t care in fact we prefer the full devs commits as then it
helps unpick stuff, I found it a shock to be squashing so
I would appreciate if we separated fixes and tests on Pull Requests.
A lot of times i will revert the fixes to validate if the test is good
(if it fails without a fix) and how it failed. (not that I don't trust
the committer, just part of the validation as sometimes I want to see
what was the
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2004
---
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2020
I sent a commit to close this PR. definitely a won't fix.
---
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2020
---
Github user jbertram commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2020
I think this may be a misunderstanding about how the core client works vs.
the other protocols. The core client is very simple. It doesn't support
address/queue auto-create and
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2020
this is a won't fix.. close it please!
---
Github user clebertsuconic commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2020#discussion_r182439370
--- Diff:
tests/integration-tests/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/tests/integration/cluster/failover/FailoverTest.java
---
@@
Github user clebertsuconic commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2020#discussion_r182438794
--- Diff:
artemis-server/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/protocol/core/ServerSessionPacketHandler.java
---
@@ -658,6
Github user franz1981 closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2028
---
Github user franz1981 closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2029
---
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2027
---
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2028
merged.. close it
---
Github user stanlyDoge commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2020
While sending AMQP message, addReceiver() is called, which causes creating
a queue.
While sending openwire message, addConsumer() is called, which also causes
creating a queue.
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2029
merged.. close it
---
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2024
---
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2027
These 3 Pull Requests are all about JDBC... it would be a lot easier if you
posted a single Pull Request with JDBC Changes with 3 commits on it. A lot
easier to manage
---
GitHub user franz1981 opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2029
ARTEMIS-1806 JDBC Connection leaks
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1806
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull
GitHub user franz1981 opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2028
ARTEMIS-1653 Allow database tables to be created externally
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1653
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$
GitHub user franz1981 opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2027
ARTEMIS-1784 JDBC NodeManager should just use DMBS clock
It avoid using the system clock to perform the locks logic
by using the DBMS time.
It contains several improvements on
Github user pgfox commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2025
@clebertsuconic , Thanks Clebert.
---
28 matches
Mail list logo
