Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.1.0 release (take #2)

Gentle reminder, last chance to cast your vote :) Thanks, Regards JB On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 9:50 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I submit Apache ActiveMQ "Classic" 6.1.0 release to your vote. > This is the second RC including the fix on bin/activemq script. > > This release

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.1.0 release (take #2)

+1 Cheers, Jamie On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 4:13 PM Matt Pavlovich wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > * Reviewed PRs > * Reviewed JIRA > * Started dist build and validated with local tests > > Thanks, > Matt Pavlovich > > > On Mar 11, 2024, at 3:50 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > > > Hi guys, > > >

Re: Re: CVE-2024-22243 Spring Framework Open Redirect Vulnerability - ActiveMQ 5.3.30

Hi Stefan Here's the Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-9453 I will close ActiveMQ 6.1.0 vote and promote the release, then I will submit 5.18.4 to vote. Regards JB On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 4:29 PM Boeltl, Stefan wrote: > > Hi Jean-Baptiste, > > Looking at >

RE: Re: CVE-2024-22243 Spring Framework Open Redirect Vulnerability - ActiveMQ 5.3.30

Hi Jean-Baptiste, Looking at https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.springframework/spring-web/5.3.31 I can see that CVE-2024-22243 is still there and fixed only in 5.3.32:

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

+1 for a separate repo Justin On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 3:56 AM Andy Taylor wrote: > Clebert, I think it will be weeks rather than days so I would just release > when you are ready. > > Robbie, I think for now a separate repo is my preferred solution, the > console can actually be run outside

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

+1 for the separate repo approach On 3/14/24 09:10, Domenico Francesco Bruscino wrote: +1 separate repo On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 14:07, Clebert Suconic wrote: +1 separate repo On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 7:12 AM Robbie Gemmell wrote: That it can actually be run standalone would be another

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

+1 for a separate repo It seems like the console would be a good candidate to separate out based on the points already made by others On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 9:10 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino < bruscin...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 separate repo > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 14:07, Clebert Suconic

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

+1 separate repo On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 14:07, Clebert Suconic wrote: > +1 separate repo > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 7:12 AM Robbie Gemmell > wrote: > > > > That it can actually be run standalone would be another reason I'd > > also choose to go with a separate repo. > > > > Lets allow other

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

+1 separate repo On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 7:12 AM Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > That it can actually be run standalone would be another reason I'd > also choose to go with a separate repo. > > Lets allow other folks time to chip in their opinions, if a separate > repo appears to be the consensus we

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

That it can actually be run standalone would be another reason I'd also choose to go with a separate repo. Lets allow other folks time to chip in their opinions, if a separate repo appears to be the consensus we can then look to create one. On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 08:51, Andy Taylor wrote: > >

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

Clebert, I think it will be weeks rather than days so I would just release when you are ready. Robbie, I think for now a separate repo is my preferred solution, the console can actually be run outside of embedded artemis so development is easy. Can someone create a new repo? On Wed, 13 Mar 2024