Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.5.0 release some time next week... (after wed)

before the release can be done? > > > Justin > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Michael André Pearce < > michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: > >> Great news. >> >> Do we have a list of things we need to attack? >> >> Sent from my iPh

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Docker Image

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Arthur Naseef wrote: > I know how to create a docker image, and do so with a maven build. > > And getting an image into a registry isn't too hard. That's the "docker > push" command. I suspect the docker-maven-plugin may be able to do that as >

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Docker Image

cough... cough... anyone have any ideas on how we can do that? :) On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry if I am being completely ignorant here. how can we deliver > official docker images? > > > Consider the following:

[HEADS-UP] 2.5.0 release some time next week... (after wed)

${SUBJECT} All we need now is to fix the examples...some are broken... and we are in a good place for the release I think. -- Clebert Suconic

[DISCUSS] Artemis Docker Image

them? There are a couple ones out there on the docker hub.. but i was looking to have an official build.. signed by us. -- Clebert Suconic

Re: Website Discussion

I believe your message got hidden by the many Pull Requests here. I don't mean to hijack your thread.. but I still believe we need to have a have a separate list for those. On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > I won't be able to do march

Re: Website Discussion

ose interested how about Monday 5th March, 20:00 UTC? > > Cheers > Martyn -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.3

; * Ran mvn apache-rat:check and no missing headers found. > > * Ran broker from the binary archive and exercised the webconsole > > * Built from source and ran the sanity tests, plus AMQP, STOMP and > > Karaf-itests. > > > > -- > > Tim Bish > > twitter: @tabish121 > > blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/ > > > > > -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [DISCUSS] Video call on ActiveMQ Artemis

r hosting our first Artemis videoconference call! > > > > Bruce > > > > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Clebert Suconic < > clebert.suco...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > I will send the video tomorrow. > > > > Does anybody have the link? I was not able to find it anywhere > > -- > Jiri Daněk > -- Clebert Suconic

[DISCUSS]/[HEADS-UP] Release Time Artemis

It's been a while since last release... Although I won't be able to do anything in the next 2 weeks... anyone willing to volunteer to do it sooner? if not I will do it in 2 weeks. -- Clebert Suconic

Re: Version compatibility from ActiveMQ_all5.14.5.jar to Active_MQ Client 5.14.5.jar

working again. Please let us know what is the difference between > ActiveMQ_all5.14.5.jar to Active_MQ Client 5.14.5.jar. > > Thanks in advance. > > Regards, > Mohanakshi > > > > -- > Sent from: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html > -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding Derby as a dependency

Actually, I will keep this as is.. .the user should decide what driver to use... I will keep configurations by default as derby (if the user doesn't provide anything else on the CLI).. but that's just for easy of use. On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding Derby as a dependency

hat goes in and what stays out, and how some things are allowed to be added > if remotely have their own lifecycle. At the moment it’s quite obvious it’s > unclear. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 18 Jan 2018, at 21:31, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com&g

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding Derby as a dependency

The example will download it through maven dependencies.. and install it at the created server/lib. On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > I will remove the dependency to avoid

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding Derby as a dependency

. This is > >>>> exactly how the integration with Derby is working. Derby lives > outside > >>> the > >>>> broker code-base with its own release cycle and is being pulled in via > >>>> Maven. If your Kafka connector was available via

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding Derby as a dependency

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Arthur Naseef wrote: > On the providing core persistence - that is core to Artemis, and Artemis > provides a reasonable solution to that problem out-of-the-box. There are > dozens, if not hundreds, or alternatives we could add as near-storage. >

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding Derby as a dependency

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Justin Bertram wrote: > I don't see any contradictions or inequities here. I'd like to confirm a > +1 from you before I merge. Let me know what you think. I'm not sure if you asked a +1 from me or Michael.. but that's exactly what I

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding Derby as a dependency

I am almost done with this.. I should be able to send a PR tomorrow.. I think it's looking nice. On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > @Martyn: That's exactly what I'm planning.. Having the embedded > Derby.. just for out of

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding Derby as a dependency

That are generic >> about any component, for anyone. >> >> eg if a component lies without someone maintaining then after 6months it >> goes to inactive, if still after a year no one steps in it gets removed and >> moves to an attic. >> >> >> >&

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding Derby as a dependency

s of the pluggable interfaces > that exist within artemis or none at all. > > I really see this as no different. I’m happy for it to be there, but then > I’d like this to applied in general, and to add the kafka ConnectorService. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 1

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding Derby as a dependency

gt; Not that I’m against this, quite the contrary actually if I could add > Kafka integration, but I would like this ruling to be consistent. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 12 Jan 2018, at 23:51, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > wrote: &

[DISCUSS] Adding Derby as a dependency

on that? -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [DISCUSS] Video call on ActiveMQ Artemis

chael André Pearce < > michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: > > > Great cannot wait. > > > > And thanks in advance. > > > > > > We shall have to tweet your video! > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On 9 Jan 2018, at 15:08, Clebert Suco

Re: [DISCUSS] Video call on ActiveMQ Artemis

at 11:18 AM, Arthur Naseef <a...@amlinv.com> wrote: > I might be able to make it then. Probably 50/50. That week involves > travel for me. > > Art > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> What about

Re: Thoughts on refactoring the ActiveMQ website

> Exporting to MD and creating a gitbook seems like a big task, I suspect any > tool we use will cause a bunch of styling/content issues. > > At least initially, how about we just create a nice landing page that > brings the ActiveMQ site and Artemis site together, and refresh/align the > existing

Re: Thoughts on refactoring the ActiveMQ website

; I agree, gitbook or similar would be a great way to manage the docs for 5.x. > > @Bruce any luck with the extract of the current bits so can play around ? > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 12 Dec 2017, at 16:19, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >

Re: Thoughts on refactoring the ActiveMQ website

> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Sent from my iPhone >> >> > >> >> > > On 7 Dec 2017, at 16:49, Bruce Snyder <bruce.sny...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > I wou

Re: Artemis client pinned to 1 of 2 brokers when attempting to connect

> However, I have unlimited retries, so the client is pinned. > > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Clebert Suconic < > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 11:02 PM Arthur Naseef <a...@amlinv.com> wrote: > > > > > Thanks

Re: Artemis client pinned to 1 of 2 brokers when attempting to connect

t; > In my mind, the desired operation is the same for initial connect versus > reconnect. Are you aware of a desire to do differently? We have a JIRA but failover is easy to mess up. There was something else with higher priority (Open wire, amqp,... etc etc) > > Art > > >

Re: Artemis client pinned to 1 of 2 brokers when attempting to connect

, it is > possible to see that the selectConnector will get called, and choose the > other broker url, after reconnect. However, this means connection failures > will cause exceptions thrown to the application. > > > If my findings appear to be incorrect, please let me know and help me to > correct them. Otherwise, please let me know and I should be able to work > toward getting a fix. > > Art > -- Clebert Suconic

Re: Artemis Roadmap

> > > FWIW- An offline KahaDB export / Artemis Journal import tool was an idea > I > > added to the wiki page Bruce setup. Maintaining messageId I think is the > > most critical element, and we could leave behind things like incomplete > > transactions, message groups, e

Re: Artemis Roadmap

5.x. > > > > > > > > > > > > I encourage everyone to contribute to this page and to discuss > this > > > > > roadmap > > > > > > on this list. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bruce > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > perl -e 'print > > > > > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\ > > "YC;VT*" > > > > );' > > > > > > > > > > > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ > > > > > > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/> > > > > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > perl -e 'print > > > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" > > );' > > > > > > > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ > > > > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/> > > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > perl -e 'print > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder > -- Clebert Suconic

Re: Thoughts on refactoring the ActiveMQ website

t;> Markdown >>> and they are less than ideal. Does anyone have any experience with this? >>> >>> Sorry for the rambling. Anyone else interested to help tackle this thorny >>> set of issues? >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> >> > > > -- > perl -e 'print > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder -- Clebert Suconic

Re: Thoughts on refactoring the ActiveMQ website

experience with this? > > Sorry for the rambling. Anyone else interested to help tackle this thorny > set of issues? > > Bruce > > -- > perl -e 'print > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' >

Re: [DISCUSS] Video call on ActiveMQ Artemis

Although if we make it in the afternoon.. it would be night for UK / Europe.. What UK/Europe people think? On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe we could alternate times... once in the morning (to *favour* UK > and European pe

Re: [DISCUSS] Video call on ActiveMQ Artemis

> from 7-11am every day. > > Bruce > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Trying to be more positive here... ;) >> >> Would there be anyone interested on having a walk through on Artemis >>

[DISCUSS] Video call on ActiveMQ Artemis

this more often afterwards... ... you will deal with my accent.. but I speak Java and some level of C well :) that's enough I would be able to put something together on Dec-18th... if that doesn't work.. we could do next year. -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

e some sense to > discuss anything which is not low-level code-oriented stuff on the users@ > list, and keep using dev@ for archiving the low-level code-focused PR > discussions? > -- > Jiri Daněk > -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Artemis as TLP

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: > What am I saying? There you have the authority in the field :). > > John, the projects are in fact separated, Artemis is actually the donated > HornetQ project. It's not like 2 factions don't agree on the future of one

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

tain creating a > separate artemis-dev@activemq.a.o list for development discussions specific > to Artemis. > > John > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:05 PM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> @Daniel: that's a general issue at apache.. not just

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

o completely mimic the commits, it > would be that the “Open PR” and “Close PR" emails would go to a different > list, but any discussion/replys would go to the dev list. I’m not sure > that buys much. > > Dan > > >> On Dec 6, 2017, at 5:44 PM, Clebert Suco

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

of the development process. > > > On 12/06/2017 05:34 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: >> >> in my view... and in my plan... going forward now I plan to make more >> discussions on the dev list.. especially around this Roadmap idea. >> >> >> What if: >> >&g

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote... I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from this thread: - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website. - Refactor the website... like.. now... with Artemis being brought forward.. (the website needs a facelift

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

> an email client. > > > > -- > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

more people > using it and have a good compatible migration path so we can be consistent > with all of our major version releases. > > Artemis is getting what it wants. More prominence and support from the AMQ > project and a commitment to migration path. > > > > > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

> Lets make this project work in harmony for everyone so we can work towards > consensus for what is AMQ6 and when. Harmony and Unanimous consensus is something pretty rare in humanity. If you help promote Artemis, work towards the roadmap.. and everything.. there's still the question: 1 year,

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

> > > If I wasn't part of the community.. I would leave now! Didn't write that well... I mean... when I looked at this page: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html It's not very friendly.. and not very attractive to people to be part of discussions.. if we have more

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

this mess hard to be followed: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html Is that a github filter? If I wasn't part of the community.. I would leave now! On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > We still have the commits li

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

with. > > Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon when > bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and eat it > too. > > > > -- > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

ttp://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev- > > > f2368404.html > > > > > > > > > -- > perl -e 'print > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder > -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

wrote: >>> [0] - without a clear migration path and tooling to assist existing users >>> moving from ActiveMQ 5 to Artemis, we risk abandoning those users - who >>> may then be forced to look at alternatives and abandon ActiveMQ all >>> together. This could be c

[DISCUSS] Move PR discussions to another list...

Can we move the github PR discussions away to a different list... I suggest we create a list called hack...@activemq.apache.org We could use it for all the github PRs notifications.. and eventually low level discussions. We should still keep general discussions on the dev list. That would

Re: [GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1687: ARTEMIS-1535 - settle delivery in same lock as...

ered as in > the error case no disposition or settlement is done which would leave a > client dangling awaiting a response. > > > --- > -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

ves and abandon ActiveMQ all > together. This could be counter productive to the original intent. > > > > > On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrou

[VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap" linked here for convenience : - http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html -

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/29/2017 02:13 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: >> >> This discussion has been open for 15 days. IMO we should move ahead with >> whatever is the next step. Vote probably? > > > Yes

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

a step migration because there is a new > > architecture. > > > > I would propose that the Artemis mainline becomes ActiveMQ 6.x. > > Continuing the frequent release cadence of Artemis, any outstanding > > migration issues can be promptly catalogued and addressed. >

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

2017 3:00 PM, "Clebert Suconic" <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Another thought - having both brokers long term seems redundant as there > is > > a huge amount of overlap, and I believe the intent (please correct me if > > this is wrong) is

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

> Another thought - having both brokers long term seems redundant as there is > a huge amount of overlap, and I believe the intent (please correct me if > this is wrong) is eventually to have Artemis superset all of the *key* > functionality from AMQ 5.x. I think all the features are covered at

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

t to up its game regarding usage >> and community, I really think keeping it in the ActiveMQ lineup is really >> the way to go. I hopefully look forward to that as I really want to see a >> lot more installations of the product. :-) >> >> Just my usual .02. >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User- >> f2341805.html >> -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [DISCUSS] AMQP Large Messages

once I do some more work. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 9:46 AM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > I will try to make a conversion. I would rather treat than make another > parameter. > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco.

Re: [DISCUSS] AMQP Large Messages

I will try to make a conversion. I would rather treat than make another parameter. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is no distinction. > > It will stream if the packet is more then min Large message size on core. >

Re: [DISCUSS] AMQP Large Messages

wrote: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Clebert Suconic < > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Martyn Taylor <mtay...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > Clebert, > > > > > > We need to distinguish between

Re: [DISCUSS] AMQP Large Messages

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote: > Clebert, > > We need to distinguish between streamed messages and large messages. For > the basic large message case, i.e. a single large message sent to the > broker. I agree with what you have here. > > Streamed large

Re: [DISCUSS] AMQP Large Messages

s should now be possible with the new LargeMessageBody > abstraction you discuss. > > Cheers > Mike > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 16 Nov 2017, at 02:10, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I am currently implementing Large Message su

[DISCUSS] AMQP Large Messages

I am currently implementing Large Message support for AMQP Messages. There's currently no support for Large Messages in AMQP, although I have recently implemented a dum copy and convert, but if you send a large message, say with 1 G, the whole body would be read into memory before a conversion to

Re: Dead Letter Queue Expiry

> > called where we can discard DLQ messages after a > > certain period of time or set an expiry date for those messages. Is > there a > > way we can do that for Artemis, perhaps a setting in broker.xml? > > > > thanks, > > Chandra > > > > > > > > -- > > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev- > > f2368404.html > > > -- Clebert Suconic

Re: Twitter

sus is ok. As long as no one has any objections I would >> think it's ok to move ahead with it under PMC control as Tim pointed out. >> But Tim is right that should give it 72 hours for people to see the thread >> and comment. >> >> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.4.0

> +1 > > * Validated signatures and checksums > * checked for license and notice files in the archives > * Created new broker instance from the binary package and ran it, check that > web console worked > * Ran some Qpid JMS client examples against the running broker > * Built from source and ran some of the tests including the AMQP tests in > the integration suite. > * Checked using mvn apache-rat:check that no missing license headers were > found. > > > -- > Tim Bish > twitter: @tabish121 > blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/ > -- Clebert Suconic

Re: Twitter

ers can login with their own accounts and no one > need the master/owners password for day to day, the owner account just > needed to reset bits if ever needed. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Owner = private pmc email (once we’ve setup all, this is easy to &g

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.4.0

Ok...I consider it fixed.. removed my -1.. I will do some more work before sending my vote. On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Justin Bertram <jbert...@redhat.com> wrote: > Should be fixed now. Let me know if I messed up. :) > > > Justin > > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.4.0

Actually, I don't need to -1 just git tag again on top of that... re-upload the tag. On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > -1 > > The 2.4.0 is at 8a5961c805b3926b0932d5c1e826238ba88d2674, while the > sam

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.4.0

; > > [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache Artemis 2.4.0 > [ ] +0 no opinion > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > > Here's my +1 > > > Justin -- Clebert Suconic

Re: Twitter

q. >> >>Before doing this I want to check there is no strong objections, as >>noted many other apache projects already do this. If none I would look >>to setup end of the week. >> >>Cheers >>Mike >> >> >> >>Sent from my iPad -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [HEADS UP] Artemis release this week

h existed in AMQ prior to artemis.) >> >>> >> >>> Is there an internal AMQ dev list that I can get on, at RH? >> >>> >> >>> I apologize if this inquiry is out-of-scope for this list. >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> I'm planning an Artemis release (2.4.0) later this week so anybody >> >>>> who >> >>>> wants a fix should send a PR if they haven't already. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Justin >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Martes G Wigglesworth >> >>> Senior Middleware Consultant >> >>> Red Hat Consulting >> >>> Red Hat, Inc. >> >>> Office Phone: 804 343 6084 <callto:804%20343%206084> - 8136084 >> >>> Office Email: mwigg...@redhat.com >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Martes G Wigglesworth >> > Senior Middleware Consultant >> > Red Hat Consulting >> > Red Hat, Inc. >> > Office Phone: 804 343 6084 <callto:804%20343%206084> - 8136084 >> > Office Email: mwigg...@redhat.com > > -- > Clebert Suconic -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [HEADS UP] Artemis release this week

planning an Artemis release (2.4.0) later this week so anybody who > >>>> wants a fix should send a PR if they haven't already. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Justin > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Martes G Wigglesworth > >>> Senior Middleware Consultant > >>> Red Hat Consulting > >>> Red Hat, Inc. > >>> Office Phone: 804 343 6084 <callto:804%20343%206084> - 8136084 > >>> Office Email: mwigg...@redhat.com > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Martes G Wigglesworth > > Senior Middleware Consultant > > Red Hat Consulting > > Red Hat, Inc. > > Office Phone: 804 343 6084 <callto:804%20343%206084> - 8136084 > > Office Email: mwigg...@redhat.com > -- Clebert Suconic

Re: Inquiry about how ActiveMQ has no support for settings and getters which existed in Legacy AMQ-5.x

;> methods >>> > which existed in AMQ prior to artemis.) >>> > >>> > Is there an internal AMQ dev list that I can get on, at RH? >>> > >>> > I was reading through the user-list just now, and someone made >>> reference to >>> > the AMP specification, and how certain property are immutable due to >>> this >>> > specification. >>> > >>> > Is that possibly the source for the change in api? >>> > >>> > I am new to AMQ-Artemis source, so I may have missed some documented >>> reason >>> > for this change, and would appreciate any info, including a "RTFM" link. >>> > >>> > Also, would this be more of a "user-list" post? >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Martes G Wigglesworth >> Senior Middleware Consultant >> Red Hat Consulting >> Red Hat, Inc. >> Office Phone: 804 343 6084 <callto:804%20343%206084> - 8136084 >> Office Email: mwigg...@redhat.com >> > > > > -- > Martes G Wigglesworth > Senior Middleware Consultant > Red Hat Consulting > Red Hat, Inc. > Office Phone: 804 343 6084 <callto:804%20343%206084> - 8136084 > Office Email: mwigg...@redhat.com -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [DISCUSS] Require timeout on every @Test

e Timeout rule instead. > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> There's a annotation I contributed with seventu that we already use to >> require name on every method's Parameterized.Parameters. >> >&g

[DISCUSS] Require timeout on every @Test

tests start to take a long time to run.. and they fail with a timeout instead. Is there anyone opposing to such thing? -- Clebert Suconic

[ANNOUNCE] Welcome Michael Andre Pearce as an Apache ActiveMQ Committer

On behalf of the Apache ActiveMQ PMC, I am very pleased to announce that Michael Andre Pearce has accepted an invitation to become a committer. We greatly appreciate all of Michael's hard work and generous contributions to the project. We look forward to continue working with him. Welcome

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.1 #2

Started the broker from the tar.gz binary archive and ran some AMQP > client examples against it. > - Used the maven staging repo to run the Qpid JMS master build+tests > against the updated broker. > > Robbie > -- Clebert Suconic

[HEADS-UP] 1.5.6 release in a week

still on that branch. -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [DISCUSS] release process improvements

pointing to the main dist release or mirrors rather >> than the archive where the files are now. >> >> The download page should also be linking to the checksums, but >> currently only links to the signatures. >> >> On 18 September 2017 at 16:42, Timo

Re: [DISCUSS] release process improvements

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/commit/b7b2960e1f1870246f0c113f56d22cfc0f7a4269 > > > > If folks are happy with this I can update the instructions at > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/RELEASING.md to > > reflect the slight process changes needed.

Re: [DISCUSS] release process improvements

ally think thats really necessary. > > Robbie > > On 15 September 2017 at 21:18, Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 09/15/2017 03:59 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: >>> >>> Just for my education. Why you Decided to drop downloading the .sha1 and >>>

Re: [DISCUSS] release process improvements

md to > reflect the slight process changes needed. > > Robbie > > On 14 September 2017 at 15:32, Clebert Suconic > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I thought about checking the sum. Didn't have time. > > > > I would check the files created by nexus Ins

[ANNOUNCE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.3.0 Released

I'm pleased to announce the release of ActiveMQ Artemis 2.3.0. Downloads are now available at: http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/download.html For a complete list of updates: http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/release-notes-2.3.0.html This release represents a big improvement for user. I

Re: [DISCUSS] release process improvements

downloading the checksum files can just > verify them with the -c flags on the CLI tools, e.g you can check all > the checksums with just: > md5sum -c *.md5 > sha512sum -c *.sha512 > > On 13 September 2017 at 23:36, Clebert Suconic > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com>

Re: [DISCUSS] release process improvements

you would just do something > like this to complete the release once the vote had passed: > svn cp -m "add files for activemq-artemis-2.3.0" > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.3.0-rc1 > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/ac

Re: [DISCUSS] release process improvements

I actually see how to make the copy into dev... let me play with it a little bit On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > what about this: > > Currently mvn release and mvn upload will always send the release to nexus, > > So

Re: [DISCUSS] release process improvements

13, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 September 2017 at 14:35, Clebert Suconic > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:21 AM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>

Re: [DISCUSS] release process improvements

oot. nexus does that check for you. You cannot upload a release with a checksum broken. It won't let you close. Like. Last week I had to restart the release once because MVN upload broke the checksum somewhere. -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [DISCUSS] release process improvements

been active since the new year and tested now a few > releases it hasn't been difficult getting binaries or artifacts and > validating them. > > > > > > Cheers > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >

Re: [DISCUSS] release process improvements

projects and their processes are even leaner than ours. On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 4:41 PM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > -1 to change the process. > > +1 to add scripts to the reviewer. > > That is we improve the process of reviews. But I don't think we

Re: [DISCUSS] release process improvements

n the dist repo > > > > The release distribution policy has suggested using SHA512 for some > > time now, I think it would be good to make the switch for the files > > provided in the dist repo. > > http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution.html#sigs-and-sums > > > > Robbie > > -- > Daniel Kulp > dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > -- Clebert Suconic

[RESULT][VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.3.0

Vote for ActiveMQ Artemis 2.3.0 has passed with 6 votes: Bindings: Clebert Suconic Timothy Bish Christopher Shannon Non Binding: Robbie Gemmel Michael Andre Pearce Franz Nigro I will delay uploading the release for 2 or 3 days for personal reasons, but the vote has passed. Cheers

Re: Artemis wildcard matching bug

pproach is correct. Also maybe we should allow > user's to be able to plug in custom matching logic to override the default? > (This is something i can do in a PR) > > Thoughts? > -- Clebert Suconic

Re: Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.3.0 - 1.x Release ?

i Clebert, > > after 2.3.0 version, > do you plan to release a 1.x version with some/all the fixes from 2.3.0 ? > > Is 1.x branch is still "supported" > or is it considered as no more compatible with the ongoing developments ? > > Thank you. > > Regards. -- Clebert Suconic

[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.3.0

I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.3.0 release, CR2. We had these new features added as part of 2.3.0: [ARTEMIS-1270] - Provide a Management Console for Artemis [ARTEMIS-1322] - Add a ServerLocator option to ignore topology for load-balancing [ARTEMIS-1324] - Critical

Re: [CANCEL] [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.3.0

> I didn't actually -1 the vote to begin with, if you read it that way maybe > there's something wrong with your environment. ok, but I wanted to make sure I'm not missing any issues. I'm not going to release this weekend any longer.. so that would give us some time to try figuring out this next

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >