+1 binding
> On May 16, 2024, at 1:19 PM, Clebert Suconic
> wrote:
>
> I want to propose having all of our user lists including an
> Unsubscribe-me link at the end of the messages. Such unsubscribe-me
> should include the link with enough information to remove such
> subscriptions. Something
policies instead of broker-wide plugin — ie forced persistence,
JMSXUserID, etc)
- Add’l JMS 3.1/2.0 features
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
Thanks, Justin! This is a nice spring cleaning on the repos.
-Matt
> On Apr 26, 2024, at 11:50 AM, Justin Bertram wrote:
>
> The vote passed with 7 binding votes.
>
> The following votes were received:
>
> Binding:
> +1 Justin Bertram
> +1 Tim Bish
> +1 Havre
+1
> On Apr 23, 2024, at 12:57 PM, Justin Bertram wrote:
>
> Following up from the previous discussion thread on this subject, I'd like
> to propose a vote for archiving the following repos:
>
> - activemq-stomp - https://github.com/apache/activemq-stomp
> - activemq-activeio -
be some unforeseen reason to release an update
out of this repo.
Thanks!
Matt Pavlovich
> On Apr 18, 2024, at 2:40 PM, Justin Bertram wrote:
>
> During the process of researching the proposed move to GitHub Issues I
> reviewed all ActiveMQ Git repos [1]. I noticed a handful that
y required before committership (the Apache
>> 2.0 license already covered contributor, it has been discussed on
>> LEGAL Jira).
>> Second, you don't report security issues on a mailing list, you go to
>> secur...@apache.org.
>> Explaining how to report issue, create PR, c
clarity).
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 5:26 PM Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>>
>> @dev-
>>
>> I’m summarizing the good points here and starting [PROPOSAL] thread to draft
>> up potential next steps.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Matt
>&g
the purposes for a Jira issue vs.
> comments in a PR. These are two completely different artifacts serving
> different needs in the process and you cannot replace one with the other.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 9:27 AM Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>
>> @dev-
>&
id for reference and linking.
Op-B. Use of GHT Project(s) for planning and tracking Issue & PR for releases.
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
@dev-
I’m summarizing the good points here and starting [PROPOSAL] thread to draft up
potential next steps.
Thanks,
Matt
> On Apr 16, 2024, at 9:58 AM, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>
> Robbie-
>
> One option with GH issues is we can have them prompted with a ’type’ (for
>
them toward being generally applicable.
>
> I believe there are private subversion repo areas for PMCs (never use
> it though), not sure whether there are facilities yet for PMC git
> repos.
>
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 17:27, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>>
>> Got it, tha
+1 (binding)
- Reviewed tickets
- Confirmed various fixes (JMX runtime reload op)
- Confirmed OSGi spring imports in Karaf
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Apr 11, 2024, at 3:08 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I submit Apache ActiveMQ "Classic" 6
gt;> and no longer use Jira. This switch was made before my time so I'm
>>>> not
>>>>>>> sure of the reasoning. Personally, I don't really care too much
>>>> either
>>>>>>> way as I've used both but I wil
> been
>>>>> using and seems to work ok as you can list multiple projects
>>>>> (versions) for an Issue or PR:
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects?type=classic
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Robbie's
> On Apr 4, 2024, at 1:26 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> To the later point around Discussions, I do think enabling those could
> be good either way since, just like with Jira, people will often
> create Issues to ask questions rather than e.g mail a mailing list.
> They might use a Discussion
gement.
Thank you for attending my TED talk,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Apr 2, 2024, at 2:52 PM, Justin Bertram wrote:
>
> There's been a few threads about this general subject, but most have
> concentrated on Classic in particular. I think it's worth discussing
> migration of ActiveM
+1 (binding)
- Reviewed PRs and JIRA issues
- Downloaded dist tar.gz and exercised the broker
Thanks JB!
Matt Pavlovich
> On Apr 2, 2024, at 12:40 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I submit Apache ActiveMQ "Classic" 6.1.1 release to your vote.
&
Hey Justin-
Checking in.. have you had a chance to collect your findings?
Thanks,
Matt
> On Mar 18, 2024, at 3:26 PM, Justin Bertram wrote:
>
> I hope to present it later this week. Thanks for your patience!
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 6:16 PM Matt Pa
changes.
ref: https://activemq.apache.org/contributing
Thanks!
Matt Pavlovich
> On Mar 17, 2024, at 2:55 PM, Anubhav Mishra
> wrote:
>
> Hello Team,
>
> Please add Akki1902, in activemq assignee list as I would love to
> contribute to the community.
> I have over 2 yea
nent (i.e. Classic). Having multiple different ways
> to complete the same task in the same project isn't going to be great for
> users or contributors. If the change is good for one component then it
> stands to reason that it would be good for all.
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Fr
All-
Kicking off a vote thread for migrating ActiveMQ Classic issues from JIRA to
GitHub.
This vote covers:
- Migration of ActiveMQ Classic JIRA issues to GitHub
- Update Apache ActiveMQ website with links to GitHub issues
This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
Thank you,
Matt
+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,
>
> I submit Apache ActiveMQ "Classic" 6.1.0 release to your vote.
> Thi
ill report back, but I believe we need
to hold the release until this is verified.
Thanks,
Matt
> On Mar 7, 2024, at 2:05 PM, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> - Downloaded dist tar.gz archive and confirmed various configurations using
> JDK 21
> - Tested web conso
+1 (binding)
- Downloaded dist tar.gz archive and confirmed various configurations using JDK
21
- Tested web console demo examples
- Tested web console functions
- Reviewed JIRA and release notes
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Mar 5, 2024, at 11:38 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
>
service that re-uses a lot from runtime config
plugin would provide a lot of transition support towards an activemq-boot
mini-kernel to replace Spring/XBean.
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Jan 12, 2024, at 12:22 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Happy new year to a
Dec 21, 2023 at 9:45 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Matt,
>>>
>>> I think it's what I proposed: 5.18.x should be our LTS branch currently.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 3:19 PM Matt Pa
Hey JB-
+1 I agree, formalizing and communicating LTS is important to users.
However, I think we should have a *released* branch that we feel is solid to
base LTS off of vs declaring a future unreleased branch as a LTS release.
-Matt
> On Dec 21, 2023, at 3:29 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
Hi François-
I don’t think there has been any discussion about tagging LTS on releases.
v6.0.x might not even by LTS, since we are going to be adding add’l JMS 2.0
impls in v6.1.0 shortly.
The full stack needs to be aligned for LTS and it’s quite difficult, since
Spring is EOL 5.x open source
’ the classes
and test code there — like you mentioned)
2. Modernize open wire-generator away from gram/groovy/annogen as needed,
leverage text blocks where we can (license, headers, etc), and perhaps
something like JavaPoet for java class generation.
Thoughts?
-Matt Pavlovich
> On De
4, 2023 at 2:18 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think it would better to complete JMS 2 in 6.1.0 including shared
>> topic
>>>> subscriptions.
>>>> We already did 6.0.x with partial JMS 2 support, which is so so from
>&g
it would better to complete JMS 2 in 6.1.0 including shared topic
>>> subscriptions.
>>> We already did 6.0.x with partial JMS 2 support, which is so so from user
>>> perspective.
>>>
>>> I would prefer to wait few weeks for 6.1.0 to
well)
> 2. Focus on 6.1.0 to complete JMS 2.x support. That's probably the
> most important (honestly, I'm not a big fan of JMS 2.x support in
> ActiveMQ 6.0.x, it could be confusing for users).
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Sat, Dec 2, 2023 at 4:10 PM Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>>
All-
I’ve started organizing some JIRAs for v6.1.0. I’m thinking early-January for
release target timeframe.
- Additional JMS 2.0 impls
- New features for observability
- Code base modernization
Thanks!
Matt Pavlovich
+1 (non-binding)
- Verified the activmeq-rar has the fixed ra.xml w/ jakarta namespaces
- Verified git commits on the 6.0.x branch align with JIRA
Thanks JB!
Matt Pavlovich
> On Nov 30, 2023, at 7:17 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Following the 6.0.0 release,
Hey JB-
Sounds good! Go for it.
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Nov 20, 2023, at 8:58 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Actually, I'm on it as I'm starting to prepare 6.0.1-SNAPSHOT.
>
> Give me 10mn and I will push it.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>
Heads up—
I’m planning to branch main as activemq-6.0.x and then renumber main to
6.1.0-SNAPSHOT to support new features in development.
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
+1 (non-binding)
Tested locally on MacOS
Tested on Windows 11 with Oracle JDK 17 (exercised the web console with various
tests)
Thanks!
Matt Pavlovich
> On Nov 14, 2023, at 4:05 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> After several weeks of work, I'm glad to submit
a destination mapping approach where shared durable subs are mapped to
queues (like how we do in MQTT)
I think I can get #1 done pretty quickly— Q1 of next year would be reasonable
#2b seems more likely than #2a longer term.
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Nov 16, 2023, at 8:05 AM, Christop
Hey JB-
Glad to hear you and your family made it through the storm safe. Hope the
cleanup goes well on the house.
As for 6.0.0 release, thanks for the update. I see the two open PRs have
‘green’ CI builds. Looks like we are close!
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Nov 5, 2023, at 1:34 AM, J
Hi Endre-
Check this commit:
https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/993
I already removed it as prep to the Jakarta work for ActiveMQ 6.0.0
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Nov 5, 2023, at 6:52 AM, Endre Stølsvik wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I am working on something I believe is a perf
The OSS Sonatype Maven Central support team can remove artifacts. Someone
(probably PMC) needs to open a JIRA about it.
https://issues.sonatype.org/secure/Dashboard.jspa
Are there artifacts also in the Apache Dist Maven Repo?
Matt Pavlovich
> On Oct 26, 2023, at 12:25 PM, Arthur Naseef wr
+1 (non-binding)
> On Oct 26, 2023, at 6:00 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I submit ActiveMQ 5.15.16 to your vote. We did one improvement on this
> release:
> - improvement on OpenWire marshaller on Throwable class type
>
> Here's the Release Notes:
>
FYI- Slack for jab-tools is:
http://eclipsefoundationhq.slack.com <http://eclipsefoundationhq.slack.com/>
Channel: #jaxb (jaxb-ri + jaxb-tools discussions)
> On Oct 25, 2023, at 12:51 PM, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>
> Hi Clebert-
>
> I suggest checking out the https://githu
v2, v3, and v4. Close coordination with Jakarta JAXB-RI team
as well (patches going both ways). JAXB-RI had regressions, so you want to
avoid the landmines with certain version.
Thanks.
Matt Pavlovich
> On Oct 25, 2023, at 11:17 AM, Clebert Suconic
> wrote:
>
> Just to record
Hi JB-
I like the idea of GitHub for issues b/c it eliminates the need for users to
create user accounts in Apache JIRA and/or subscribe to the mailing lists.
Feels like mailing lists are falling out of favor for most users and we’d get
better engagement with GH.
My $0.02.
Thanks,
Matt
Hi JB-
Sounds good, my changes are all merged or in pending PR (2 PRs).
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Oct 2, 2023, at 12:44 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> We made good progress on ActiveMQ 6.0.0 preparation, including big changes.
> I still have a few change
n (including
>> schemas update, etc).
>>
>> I will now move forward on the related changes.
>>
>> Thanks all,
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 3:27 PM Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>>>
>>> Sounds good, makes sense.
>&g
Sounds good, makes sense.
Thanks,
Matt
> On Sep 14, 2023, at 11:29 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> I agree and that's ActiveMQ 5.x stays with javax.jms and ActiveMQ 6.x
> changes to jakarta.jms.
>
> So we are fully aligned and it shows that ActiveMQ 6.x is cleaner.
> If users want to
frequently have security issues. Today, we don’t have to install
those so we dodge that security surface area altogether.
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Sep 11, 2023, at 7:07 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> As you know, ActiveMQ 5.19.x is in preparation with importants
Heads up-
The Jakarta PR is merged. ‘main’ is now JDK 17, Jakarta, Spring 6, Jetty 11
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Aug 29, 2023, at 10:26 AM, Christopher Shannon
> wrote:
>
> Sounds good, I think it's ready to go as anything that needs fixing
> shouldn't be major and we have ti
Hey Chris— Thanks for the review.
I’ll plan to merge the PR this evening and get started on other tasks ahead of
release.
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Aug 28, 2023, at 5:33 PM, Christopher Shannon
> wrote:
>
> I'm wrapping up my testing now, I've done a lot of thorough testing w
that have only namespace changes.
https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/996
Thanks!
Matt Pavlovich
Thanks Tim!
I added these notes and created a new ticket to modernize the tooling.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-9302
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Aug 23, 2023, at 1:59 PM, Timothy Bish wrote:
>
> On 8/23/23 13:11, Arthur Naseef wrote:
>> That sounds right. My 2c
and brokers usually do not adopt fully.
3. There are planned enhancements coming that most likely require openwire
version bumps:
- JMS 2.0 support features
- Replication support (using Network Connectors)
Discuss.
Thank you,
Matt Pavlovich
LGTM
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Aug 4, 2023, at 4:51 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> Noone had added anything yet, it was still just the final report draft
> I committed for the April meeting and so only mentioned stuff known up
> to then.
>
> I have just wri
Hi Robert-
Feature Enhancement requests are welcome (especially ones that include a PR!)
The process is to open a JIRA ticket here— https://issues.apache.org/jira
Thank you!
Matt Pavlovich
> On Jul 31, 2023, at 5:32 AM, ISTVAN, ROBERT
> wrote:
>
> Dear Team,
> I'd like to
Hi Jiri-
That’d be great! Do you have a url for that project?
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Jul 12, 2023, at 11:50 AM, Jiri Daněk wrote:
>
> If you want, I can share a Gradle project which runs the 3.1 Jakarta JMS
> TCK tests with Artemis. Without looking at the scr
+1 (non-binding)
> On Jul 10, 2023, at 9:45 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi Justin,
>
> It has been discussed but not the name specifically.
>
> As we use apache/activemq-artemis, I thought "logical" to use
> apache/activemq (but maybe activemq-classic makes more sense).
>
> I'm not
+1 (non-binding) successfully ran internal test suite
Thanks JB!
Matt Pavlovich
> On Jun 28, 2023, at 8:40 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I submit Apache ActiveMQ 5.17.5 release to your vote. This release is
> a maintenance release on the 5.17.x series
+1 (non-binding) successfully ran internal test suite
Thanks JB!
Matt Pavlovich
> On Jun 28, 2023, at 12:44 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I submit Apache ActiveMQ 5.18.2 release to your vote. This release is
> a maintenance release on the 5.18.x series
case. ActiveMQ happily supports both these features in separate queues— and has
for a long time and meets the functionality as laid out in the JMS
specification.
Best,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 4:01 PM Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>
>> Hi Endre-
>>
>> Contributi
this “one flow” into “several flows” that your issues
will be resolved and you won’t need to patch or maintain any changes to
ActiveMQ itself.
Hope this helps!
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Jun 18, 2023, at 6:17 AM, Endre Stølsvik wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
A couple good fixes in there. All my changes are in both branches and ready to
release.
Thanks, JB!
> On Jun 15, 2023, at 8:20 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> FYI, we are preparing ActiveMQ 5.18.2 and 5.17.5 before moving forward
> on 5.19.x (planned for next month).
>
> I
/activemq/broker/jmx/PersistenceAdapterView.java
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On May 16, 2023, at 8:44 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro
> wrote:
>
> Yes I remember the discussion.
> To be honest, as I was mentioning, even JSON-B/P is probably overkill for
> what we need.
>
> Happy to
Hello Jean-Louis-
This has come up in the past. Iirc, the discussion was leaning towards using
json-b and then Jackson as the out-of-the-box provider.
This sounds like a good change for 5.19.x line
Thanks,
-Matt Pavlovich
> On May 16, 2023, at 5:17 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro
> wrote:
&
+1 sounds good!
Matt Pavlovich
> On May 11, 2023, at 5:05 AM, Michael André Pearce
> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Krzysztof and I have been offline chatting and starting to feel the need to
> revamp the NMS docs, one thing we're finding is that the docs area is a
&
Hi Rune-
Contributions always welcome! Below is the current PR I have in progress for
the Jakarta work w/ notes and TODOs.
https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/996
The broker boots, and works. The web console does not, needs some clean-ups for
changes.
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On May
from the dist assembly, there are just a small number of open items to be
resolved before the PR will be merged.
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On May 10, 2023, at 9:23 AM, rune.gell...@bt.com.invalid
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I checked out the latest classic ActiveMQ
> (https:/
+1 (non-binding)
Thanks!
> On Apr 11, 2023, at 4:26 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I submit Apache ActiveMQ 5.18.1 release to your vote. This release
> fixes activemq-client-jakarta where the META-INF/services file was
> missing in the artifact.
>
> You can take a look on the
11 + javax broker + Spring 5 + activemq-client-jakarta
5.19.x- JDK 17 + jakarta broker + Spring 6
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Apr 5, 2023, at 12:34 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> I dont really understand what your table of combinations entries say,
> and so why Op
Looks good! Thanks, Robbie.
> On Apr 12, 2023, at 5:34 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> I fleshed out the report with the stats + releases etc detail, tweaked
> the earlier additions from Justin and Matt, and reflowed things so it
> can be submitted directly via Whimsy.
>
>
Hello Bruce-
I added some updates for ActiveMQ 5.x activity.
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Apr 11, 2023, at 2:36 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
> So far, there have been zero contributions to the board report and it's due
> tomorrow. Please contribute to this month's board report so
: Gap versions and support 3 (or more) LTS branches and do not do
-javax modules in 5.19.x
Option 2: Add -javax modules to 5.19.x and support 2 LTS branches
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Apr 5, 2023, at 9:20 AM, Christopher Shannon
> wrote:
>
> All fair points Robbie. I'd still l
-web’ v6 w/ Jakarta artifactId is still just ’spring-web’.
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Apr 3, 2023, at 11:53 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> Though that was over 2 years ago, and at the time having the separate
> -jakarta modules was probably the most obvious way to go given ver
Hi Endre-
Thanks, this might be a way to bring 5.18.x forward on Jetty version 12 w/o
converting 5.18.x to jakarta and Spring 6.
-Matt Pavlovich
> On Mar 30, 2023, at 3:06 PM, Endre Stølsvik wrote:
>
> From a lurker position here, I just wanted to point out that Jetty is
> evid
else back to have clean GAV coordinates.
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Mar 30, 2023, at 3:49 PM, Christopher Shannon
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Matt for bringing this up. We definitely need to figure out a path
> forward as there is a lot of confusion about this still and users are
> gett
-bin.tar.gz package using re-packaging of the
jakarta artifacts.
4. Leave 5.19.x as a ‘gap version’ in case it is needed for 5.18.x changes
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
Chris-
Good point re Jakarta and the need to communicate specifics. I’ll work to
update the JMS2 page to include notes about the Jakarta support.
-Matt
> On Mar 23, 2023, at 8:54 AM, Christopher Shannon
> wrote:
>
> Also for anyone who is looking at the release and is testing and isn't
>
+1 (non-binding)
- Internal test suite completed successfully
- Downloaded tar.gz, confirmed scenarios using web console
Thanks!
Matt
> On Mar 19, 2023, at 12:26 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> After several weeks of work, I'm glad to submit ActiveMQ 5.18.0 to
> your vote. This
Hi JB-
Sounds good, I’ve started cleaning up JIRA and PRs. I’ll get my stuff merged
and sorted out here in the next 1-2 days.
Thanks!
Matt Pavlovich
> On Mar 4, 2023, at 11:44 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Now 5.17.4 has been released, I propose to move fo
+1 (non-binding)
- Internal test suite passed
- Download dist, started broker and performed a few manual tests
Thanks!
Matt
> On Feb 22, 2023, at 2:06 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I submit ActiveMQ 5.17.4 to your vote. This release includes several
> fixes, improvements and a
+1 (non-binding)
- Successfully completed internal test suite
- Reviewed JIRA and commits
Thanks!
Matt Pavlovich
> On Feb 10, 2023, at 9:56 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> We receive several requests to provide a new (final) ActiveMQ 5.16.6
> release, incl
namespace and dependency changes.
v5.18.x (JDK 11 minimum, JMS 2.0, javax.jms, Spring 5)
v5.19.x (JDK 11 minimum, JMS 2.0, jakarta.jms, Spring 6)
-Matt Pavlovich
> On Jan 8, 2023, at 1:19 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I started to work on ActiveMQ 5.18.x major rele
Hi Rony-
Please send this message over to the users list — us...@activemq.apache.org
<mailto:us...@activemq.apache.org>
The dev@ list is for development of ActiveMQ itself.
Thanks!
Matt Pavlovich
> On Dec 22, 2022, at 12:49 AM, Rony Christian
> wrote:
>
> Hello team,
+1 (non-binding)
- Reviewed release notes and JIRAs
- Ran internal test suite
Thanks JB!
-Matt Pavlovich
> On Nov 29, 2022, at 9:31 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I submit the ActiveMQ 5.17.3 release to your vote.
>
> This release includes 32 f
+1 (non-binding) looks good to go
> On Oct 11, 2022, at 11:14 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
> Given the lack of responses to this discussion, I assume we are all
> satisfied with the current state of this board report. Therefore, I will
> submit the report today as it is due tomorrow.
>
> Bruce
>
ound right, or is there functionality I'm missing in that
>> list? Does the abstraction sound reasonable, or would you not be in favor?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 11:38 AM Jonathan Gallimore <
>> jonathan.gall
branches. Older versions will age out and can leverage maven
repo for archive.
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Sep 28, 2022, at 2:32 PM, Justin Bertram wrote:
>
> This got me thinking about who is the intended audience for the JavaDoc.
> It's not for folks working on the broker di
Can you share the results of the testing? I’m having a hard time tracking how
adding the transaction does not incur latency.
> On Sep 14, 2022, at 2:03 PM, Nikita Shupletsov
> wrote:
>
> Yeah, I agree that there is some overhead because of transactions. but our
> tests didn't show any
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 10:24 AM Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>>
>> The REST service in ActiveMQ 5 is actively used, and should not be removed.
>> If there are bugs or issues, please file a JIRA.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Matt Pavlovich
>>
>>> On Sep 12, 2
The REST service in ActiveMQ 5 is actively used, and should not be removed. If
there are bugs or issues, please file a JIRA.
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Sep 12, 2022, at 3:58 PM, Tetreault, Lucas
> wrote:
>
> Should we remove REST from ActiveMQ "Classic" as
FYI— the maven plugin change is merged to main and the Jenkinsfile updated to
include a Build JDK 17 step.
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Aug 29, 2022, at 4:10 PM, Christopher Shannon
> wrote:
>
> Based on that I'll change to a +1. We can fix it for the next release.
>
> On
I think we go with the release. There is no Java code change for JDK 17, so
this feels like a minor packaging-only change.
-Matt Pavlovich
> On Aug 29, 2022, at 11:13 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> I propose to keep this vote running and fix for next release. The
> broker sho
://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/901
<https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/901>
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Aug 29, 2022, at 8:24 AM, Christopher Shannon
> wrote:
>
> +0, I'm ok releasing but it would be nice to fix since it's a regression.
>
> The most importan
+1
- Ran full unit-tests from the 5.17.x branch on a private system (All tests but
1 known flakey test passed)
- Ran internal test suite
- Fired up the distribution and sent/cleared some messages
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Aug 26, 2022, at 12:10 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
Hi Sureshkumar-
This is the link: https://issues.apache.org/jira/
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/>
Be sure to set the ‘Project’ to ‘ActiveMQ (AMQ)’. Include Affected Version:
(ie. 5.16.5, 5.17.1, etc) , other details and attachments there.
Thanks!
Matt Pavlovich
> On Aug 26, 2022,
appears to be more dated (v1.9.4 2018) than the current jasypt
release (v1.9.3 2020).
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Aug 26, 2022, at 11:11 AM, Sureshkumar Jayapal
> wrote:
>
> Hi ,
> When we use the default algorithm for encryption and decryption it works but
> when we use o
+1 in favor of less dependencies in the bistro
> On Aug 4, 2022, at 2:01 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We already removed the activemq-camel component from ActiveMQ distribution.
>
> However, we still have references to Camel in ActiveMQ distribution
> (in the conf example, in
+1 on Mike’s point here.
Shaded client jars are just another packaging for a subset of users — 3rd
party, SaaS, COTS apps, etc. that consume a jar like a ‘driver’. At times,
limited to only allow uploading of a single file.
Matt Pavlovich
> On Jul 27, 2022, at 9:57 AM, Michael André Pea
Updating 5.16.x to have one of the suggested fixes, seems to be a
straight-forward and simple solution to this issue. While unfortunate, I don’t
think we should revert given there have already been a couple of 5.16.x
releases since then.
While unfortunate that Art got caught up in the change,
1 - 100 of 337 matches
Mail list logo
