releases when I am back working on next week.
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 12:41 PM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
>
> > It doesnt need to be 2.19.<1..2..3 etc>-SNAPSHOT (though its probably
> > the most obvious), it could be something else, but I dont think it
>
personal issues... and I'm taking
> vacation days to take care of those issues... If no one is around to
> do a release this week I will do one next week. (the week of Jan-24th
> for future references).
>
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 6:58 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
> >
> > I
I have fixed the pom to use 2.19.1-SNAPSHOT versions rather than the
2.19.0-SNAPSHOT they were using.
I noticed the last commit from
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3461 was not backported
but all the earlier ones which introduced various issues were, so I
backported the
git-cherry can also be quite useful in cases like this, it is used to
check if changes (the same effective diff of a commit, rather than the
exact same commit since SHAs / line numbers etc can differ) from a
branch have landed on a target branch yet.
You can essentially run it and get a succinct
you do try on a lower
version.
On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 at 12:30, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> I didnt do anything with docker generation, I've never used those bits
> so it hadnt occurred to me anything might be needed there.
>
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 21:25, Clebert Suconic
> wrote:
&
For anyone, particularly release managers, that didnt spot previous
blogs etc [1] ...
Note that once a new release is published to the dist area, you wont
need to wait e.g up to a day anymore for it to sufficiently mirror
before then updating the site and announcing.
The current-release
; > >
> > > @Havret let me know if that’s the issue please ?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 6:05 AM Robbie Gemmell > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> If the management API has a queue deletion operation that takes an
If the management API has a queue deletion operation that takes an
'auto delete address' boolean then I would consider it a bug if it
doesnt actually [eventually] delete a previously
auto-created-by-management address when that boolean is true,
regardless of the broker config.
If it doesnt delete
heck the docker generation ? If lot leave it with me.
> (Just chatting now as I’m not in front of a computer until tomorrow )
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 12:40 PM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
>
> > As before but now 9 months since proposal / 2.19.0 has also shipped /
> > Java 17
Ideally start a new thread in future.
I would guess this is the 'address/queue scan period' from
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3502, and you may want
to reduce it to a small value for that particular test.
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 21:15, Havret wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to
As before but now 9 months since proposal / 2.19.0 has also shipped /
Java 17 released over a month ago.
Robbie
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 at 13:02, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> I have raised https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3420 and
> created a related PR at
> https://githu
gt; - 1 ticket open
> > ActiveMQ OpenWire
> > - Literally has a ticket saying "can we close this down?" (OPENWIRE-46)
> >
> > [Deprecated]
> > ActiveMQ Apollo
> > ActiveRealTime
> > Stomp Specification (zero open issues)
> >
> > I th
Having multiple JIRA projects is definitely preferable to me for
different bits that are released independently and dont live in the
same repo. Having them all mushed into one JIRA project just leads to
more awkward version naming, less obvious issue names/sequences,
harder queries, etc etc. (I've
The code is never used.. and it should not block a release...
>
>
> Although I may send a PR today / tomorrow regardless.. per your
> request.. but that's a totally optinal task Robbie
>
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 9:53 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
> >
> > The
needed... there's nothing
> to be done in that case.
>
> I thought I already mentioned that in the PR.
>
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 4:13 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
> >
> > Revert what exactly? Reverting the PR this was raised on wouldn't
> > actually change anythi
I'm addressing another issue I'm working on.. and I won't be able to
> look into that
>
>
> @Franz / @Robbie Gemmell ?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 4:37 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
> >
> > I this also still needs looked at:
> >
> > >
I also think there is still some final touchup needed on #3278 / its followup:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3737#discussion_r707239677
On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 09:36, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> I this also still needs looked at:
>
> > I also think
g a retry on the same thread as the depage executor.
> >
> >
> > I am finishing a test I'm writing and I will send the PR tomorrow (Friday)
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 12:46 PM Robbie Gemmell
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I left some mostl
Let’s postpone until Monday while we investigate these.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:01 AM Robbie Gemmell
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Franz believes he found the issue, side effects from an earlier change
> >> made months ago being hit now, exp
Monday while we investigate these.
>
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:01 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
>
> > Franz believes he found the issue, side effects from an earlier change
> > made months ago being hit now, exposed by use of the affected method
> > in recent changes
On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 12:57, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> Changes made on main recently (perhaps yesterday) look to have rather
> broken some things on expanded test runs (i.e not the push/PR subset),
> so that needs to be resolved first.
>
> On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 22:48, Clebert
Changes made on main recently (perhaps yesterday) look to have rather
broken some things on expanded test runs (i.e not the push/PR subset),
so that needs to be resolved first.
On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 22:48, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
> Any problem if I did the release tomorrow?
>
> Anyone wants to
It's not something I can do, needs to be a PMC member.
On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 at 20:01, Havret wrote:
>
> Robbie, could you move the artifacts from the dev area, so I can finish the
> release? I asked Mike to do it, but he went on vacation.
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 1:01 PM
There are still important outstanding steps remaining to complete the
release process. The release files were not officially published and
so are neither mirrored or archived yet, and the website wasnt updated
or a release announcement made. I see the package did make it to nuget
8 days ago
; +1 (binding): JB Onofré, Clebert Suconic, Michael André Pearce, Christopher
> Shannon
> +1 (non binding): Robbie Gemmell, Charlie Chen, Matt Pavlovich, Etienne
> Hossack
>
> I’m promoting the artifacts on Maven Central and dist, then I will update
> Jira and website, and I will s
I have raised https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3420 and
created a related PR at
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3696 for this.
I think it is time to move on requiring Java 11 for future releases,
and just after a release is a great time to get going on it.
It has now
On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 08:08, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I submit Apache ActiveMQ 5.16.3 release to your vote (take #2). This new
> vote fixes the assembly long path issue on some environment (AMQ-8352).
>
> This release includes important fixes and updates on the 5.16.x
Yep, Clebert noted this in his initial reply yesterday and updated the
template, and committed the change to the release guide to avoid
further occurrences.
(I would just have deleted the whole section though personally rather
than just removing the version, since the response format is implicit
On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 at 19:45, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
> I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.18.0 release
>
> This is a substantial release involving good work from a lot of great
> people. Thank you and congratulations to all involved in achieving the
> current state on the
I gave things a look over for previous issues I've seen, looked good.
Sigs and checksums verified, the missing source file headers were
added, LICENCE+NOTICE files present and dates are good, I had no
problems deleting the extracted files.
(Not voting since I haven't actually tried it, wouldnt
Titling the JIRA with 'Remove' rather than 'Deprecate' would seem
clearer if a straight up removal PR is planned.
On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 at 15:22, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>
> I’m planning on removing the FTP Blob Strategy from activemq/activemq-client
>
> JIRA AMQ-8341:
> ref:
e Linux based tool that you're guys
> using. Unfortunately it is not available on Windows. :(
>
> KP
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 3:15 PM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
>
> > See https://creadur.apache.org/rat/ for licence check tooling.
> >
> > I noted the
See https://creadur.apache.org/rat/ for licence check tooling.
I noted the checksum format wasn't typical one as I've never seen it
used in a release before. The checkum being split into subsections and
formatted in an uppercase multi line grid, and so doesnt work with e.g
sha512sum, and also
-1 (non-binding)
- There are a few source files without licence headers.
- NOTICE file copyright is 2 years out of date in both archives.
The .sha512 checksum files are also in an unusual format (to me at
least) and not so easily verified as a result. I eyeballed part of one
but gave up due to
The website repo is at https://github.com/apache/activemq-website/
On Wed, 26 May 2021 at 11:31, Jonathan Gallimore
wrote:
>
> Hi Chris
>
> Thanks so much for taking the time to review and provide feedback. I'm
> definitely happy to have another shot at getting the additional predicate
>
Yes it makes sense to announce 5.15.15 as the last planned 5.15.x
release as discussed over the last few months. It should also be noted
on the website, i.e download page and 5.15.15 release page. I have
just made a change to do that in
Noting again that removing the old release files before the site is
updated for a new release breaks various download page links.
All the sig and checksum links for 5.15.14 and 5.16.1 on the download
page are broken currently. I think the source/binary archive download
links are only still
Just to note, the issue I raised with the first cut having release
archives mismatched between the dist repo and the maven repo looks to
have been resolved for this second cut.
Given my other previous comments I'm still -0 on this one overall
personally though (or at least, it completing before a
The LICENSE file in the binary archive came up in some changes in a
recent PR, and it became clear it needs an overhaul for improper (and
possibly stale) console deps entries. I raised
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3241 to track that for
the folks familiar with the console bits.
I
> > using "main" as the default branch so I think we should do the same.
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 2:45 PM Clebert Suconic
> > wrote:
> >
> > > That means we can go ahead with that then...
> > >
> > > if anyone have
gt; if anyone have any objections, let me know..
> > >
> > >
> > > I will ask in the ticket for when that would be done.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 4:10 AM Robbie Gemmell
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Only 2 PR
can be releases after
> 5.15.15.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> > Le 7 avr. 2021 à 16:10, Robbie Gemmell a écrit :
> >
> > The -bin artifacts in the dist dev area differ from those in the maven
> > staging repo, as previously reported for the prior release. T
The -bin artifacts in the dist dev area differ from those in the maven
staging repo, as previously reported for the prior release. These
files should be the same, and would be if following the documented
process or common alternatives, so I dont quite understand how this is
still occurring.
lipse EE8 is a direct replacement of
> >> > geronimo-JMS... so it can just be replaced.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 6:11 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> >> robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >&g
wse/INFRA-21589
> >
> > Robbie
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 at 20:21, Clebert Suconic
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Using the GitHub to rename would be great as any PRs will probably be
> > > included.
> > >
> > > Thanks R
> wrote:
>
> > Nice ! Thanks for the update !
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > > Le 16 mars 2021 à 19:08, Robbie Gemmell a
> > écrit :
> > >
> > > I was originally going to begin the rename process for Qpid tomorrow,
> > &
Only comment is that if not doing both at the same time, doing 5.16.2
first and then 5.15.15 would seem better.
If the 5.15.15 announcement is going to say people need to use 5.16.x
instead going forward, it would make sense for 5.16.x release to be
right up to date with any common/shared changes
The 'classic' terminology on the homepage is used more as a
description rather than a name to me, speaking to its quality and
vintage and in some small straightforward way. ActiveMQ 5 is still the
way the broker is referenced on the site as a whole so far as I see,
rather than ActiveMQ Classic.
ith progress as I
> go over this thread.
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 6:24 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
> >
> > Yep, thats the only config we have for the website auto build, which
> > is a standard build. Essentially we just enable it and tell it which
> > branc
They are more than simple mirrors these days if you want, you can
actually push to GitHub if you jump through some hoops to link your
accounts. I haven't personally done it, but details are listed at
https://gitbox.apache.org/
On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 at 22:17, Justin Bertram wrote:
>
> Aren't the
wrote:
>
> Hi Robbie,
>
> Thanks for your feedback.
>
> 1. Absolutely about the published artifacts, I will take care of this.
>
> 2. January sounds good to me.
>
> Thanks again
> Regards
> JB
>
> > Le 15 mars 2021 à 14:37, Robbie Gemmell a écrit :
> &
On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 at 16:58, Jean-Baptiste Onofre wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> We already did (or plan to do soon) some updates addressing CVE fixes, and
> fixing bug.
>
> I’m starting Jira triage now and working on some fixes/improvements.
>
> I would like to release 5.16.2 and 5.15.15 to keep our
to do it locally. Anyone have any idea?
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:34 AM Clebert Suconic
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks a lot, I have everything I need now
> >
> > I plan to work on this next week.. I will follow up with progress as I
> > go over thi
Yep, thats the only config we have for the website auto build, which
is a standard build. Essentially we just enable it and tell it which
branch to build changes from (the one matching whoami) and then the
target branch to commit and push any output updates to, where they are
then picked up from
It seems like this could make for a bit of awkward dependency
management in some cases, from then requiring 2 different versions of
the same dependencies within the regular build. Is the thinking to
perhaps introduce separate properties for the different versions
needed and have the parent pom
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 at 15:36, Jenkins, Rodney J (Rod) <
jenki...@nationwide.com> wrote:
>
>
> I have a question on the tarballs on https://archive.apache.org and
> https://repo1.maven.org. I noticed that the images are not the same SHA
> and not the same size. Is there a reason for that?
>
>
r comments in mind.
>
> Anyway, I will move forward on my actions and release cycle for the good
> of the project ;)
>
> > Le 5 févr. 2021 à 18:52, Robbie Gemmell a
> écrit :
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 at 16:21, Jean-Baptiste Onofre
> wrote:
now but I don't see it, although website appears to but updated now.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 8:44 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks Robbie,
> >>>>
> >>>> I was about to up
That is the pom for the module used to create the distribution
archives, I wouldn't really expect an application build to ever use
that.
Sounds like you want at least artemis-server (as a regular jar type
dependency), perhaps others.
On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 at 13:40, Christoph Läubrich wrote:
>
>
I have just updated the website to change the download page to 5.16.1,
add the 5.16.1 release page (which notes the announced CVE Gary
already updated the site with), and fix the broken links for the
5.16.0 page. The site should be updated before the prior release is
removed from mirrors, or it
Doing more frequent releases sounds good, and to more of a schedule
also. Saying what JDK etc a release uses/supports on the site is also
good. We aren't allowed to direct everyday users to unreleased
software as a matter of policy, so I would say that 5.17.x shouldnt be
mentioned until released
Will there be an announcement mail? The 5.15.13 page also didn't look
to change in the website update commit, so the links will remain
broken.
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 16:53, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> Are you using an alternative or layered client? The result doesnt
> present as the typic
at 15:50, Jean-Baptiste Onofre wrote:
>
> I did svn remote, but had "flaky" connection today.
>
> It’s now OK.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> > Le 10 déc. 2020 à 15:07, Robbie Gemmell a écrit :
> >
> > The commit email and below suggests you are manuall
wiki page at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/Release+Guide)
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 13:03, Jean-Baptiste Onofre wrote:
>
> It’s in progress (got some connection issue yesterday evening).
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> > Le 10 déc. 2020 à 14:00, Robbie Gemmell a
The maven staging repo was promoted and the bits are listed on
central, but the source release / binary conveniences have not been
copied to the dist release area and so aren't yet started mirroring.
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 16:45, Jean-Baptiste Onofre wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> This vote passed with
and zip files
> 2. Validates SHA1 and MD5
> 3. Extracts the zip and tar.gz
> 4. Cleans up after itself
>
> Next step would be to add the gpg signature validation
>
> Thanks,
> Matt Pavlovich
>
> > On Nov 27, 2020, at 9:56 AM, Robbie Gemmell
> > wrote:
>
Yep, looks better now.
On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 16:29, Jean-Baptiste Onofre wrote:
>
> NB: upload is still on the way, it should be OK in 10mn or so.
>
> > Le 27 nov. 2020 à 16:56, Robbie Gemmell a écrit :
> >
> > The issues I noted (.md5 present, -bin files missing)
l push the fix on the
> script.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> > Le 27 nov. 2020 à 16:10, Robbie Gemmell a écrit :
> >
> > I would fix the dist problems before starting another release
> > personally, so that any new voters can properly inspect things.
> >
it ! I will move forward on 5.16.1 in
> the meantime.
>
> Thanks !
> Regards
> JB
>
> > Le 27 nov. 2020 à 12:48, Robbie Gemmell a écrit :
> >
> > Many of the people you are looking to remind are likely not around to
> > see it, being on vacation either for or ju
Many of the people you are looking to remind are likely not around to
see it, being on vacation either for or just around the US
Thanksgiving. It's probably the second worst point of the year to have
a release vote open unfortunately.
I'd note that the binary archives are missing from the dist
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 12:40, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 01:45, Clebert Suconic
> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.16.0 release.
> >
> > This release is including these new features as part of 2.16.0:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 01:45, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
> I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.16.0 release.
>
> This release is including these new features as part of 2.16.0:
>
> [ARTEMIS-2901] - Support namespace for temporary queues
> [ARTEMIS-2937] - AMQP Server Connectivity
>
you could please either open a new conversation, or wait the
> > > > > new PR.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't manage 200+ github comments without resolving conversations
> > > > > after I deal with the conversation. (my browser actually crashed one
>
lementation and I will polish things on
> monday (do a set of review from myself and open a new PR).
>
> Have a nice weekend!
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 1:00 PM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
> >
> > It might be worth raising a fresh PR for finishing off review af
It might be worth raising a fresh PR for finishing off review after
you've done the next set of polish, the existing one has seen such a
bunch of change and as a result has got so big as to be a bit
unmanageable :)
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 15:49, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
> I am obviously pushing
Yes it is a manual process, PMC members can add the releases as the
vote closes, using the page Justin linked.
There was an import-from-JIRA button in the past, but it got removed
at some point, which was probably for the best as it was between
annoying to unviable to use with multiple components
Note I'm not saying you need to wait for all the build services to
complete before e.g merging a PR. If any one is finished, by all means
merge away.
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 17:48, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> I'm not objecting per se, but I dont see particular benefits to doing
> so. I
I'm not objecting per se, but I dont see particular benefits to doing
so. I said when introducing the GitHub Actions build that I actually
do see benefits to still running both, that remains true.
- Additional test runs are useful for spotting sporadic failure issues
creep in, and in seeing them
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 19:48, Domenico Francesco Bruscino
wrote:
>
> I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.15.0 release.
>
> We added these new features as part of 2.15.0:
>
> [ARTEMIS-2847] - socks5h support
> [ARTEMIS-2855] - Define a new broker plugin to track XA transactions
>
to the commits list, as do the commits themselves.
I've cleared the staging area (which is no longer in use) by replacing
the content with a simple note linking to the main website, and then
deleted the test branches.
Robbie
On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 16:05, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> Not seeing
-site branch for the published site output.
- Build automatically in CI on pushing source changes and commit ouput
to the asf-site branch for immediate live publish.
- Remove the staging branch again (clearing the stale staging content
beforehand).
Robbie
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 09:22, Robbie Gemmell
I haven't seen this mail discussed, or any jobs migrated onto the new
Jenkins setup, so I thought I'd forward it in case folks aren't
actually aware.
Existing Jenkins jobs need to be migrated to the new servers or the
job will effectively be lost on August 15th. You need to ask for an
ActiveMQ
?
>
> Why not publish it straight away? we can all test it locally before
> pushing a commit?
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 12:53 PM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
> >
> > Readme updated on the jekyll-test-master branch.
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 17:17, Robbie G
> > Thanks Robbie,
> > > it is published[1] and the nexus 'close' process verified the sigs so it
> > > may be that the apache keys page needs more time to refresh.
> > > I will keep an eye on it.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://pgp.surfnet.nl/pks/
gt; Hi Robbie,
>
> Website has been updated last week, I gonna do the announcement.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> > Le 23 juil. 2020 à 16:21, Robbie Gemmell a écrit
> > :
> >
> > Announcements still coming?
> >
> > On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 06:47, Jean-Baptist
Readme updated on the jekyll-test-master branch.
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 17:17, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> Feel free to commit anything to try, it is only going to the staging
> area so there is no issue - I put my test changes right in the middle
> of the front page hehe.
>
&g
should still have the hability to test the changes before committing,
> and i see that the current test branch has that... as long as we keep
> that... I'm +1000 for this.. nice job!)
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 2:41 PM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
> >
> > Following on from
Announcements still coming?
On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 06:47, Jean-Baptiste Onofre wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I finally figured out what was the issue with Jekyll on my Mac. I’m now
> working on updating website including ActiveMQ 5.15.13 and 5.16.0 releases.
> Then, I will do the announcement.
>
>
Following on from an earlier thread around Jekyll versions and build
issues etc, I have just gone through the hoops with infra and put an
automated website build in place for a trial and discussion. Folks can
now give it a try out and we could decide if it or a variant is
desirable to use going
Did you upload your new PGP public key to a keyserver? It isnt being
listed at https://people.apache.org/keys/ because it hasnt been found.
That may mean you cant release the staging repo.
On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 11:06, Gary Tully wrote:
>
> Thanks Tim,
> makes perfect sense and is item 11 on the
On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 at 15:51, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
> > Aside: the ballot paper style text at the bottom refers to 2.4.0, here
> > and in many prior votes similarly. I'd suggest that section just be
> > dropped from future votes to avoid it being stale, the people who need
> > to should
One approach seems to be continuing as is, but using something like
https://bundler.io/ to install a more consistent set of gems so that a
consistent jekyll is used by everyone
For another approach, the site publishing bits have supported
performing an automated Pelican build ages, and it seems
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 14:26, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
> I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.14.0 release.
>
> We only added one feature as part of this release:
>
> [ARTEMIS-2770] - Update diverts using the management API
>
> And we have quite a few improvements on this release:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 22:12, Timothy Bish wrote:
>
> On 7/10/20 9:26 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.14.0 release.
> >
> > We only added one feature as part of this release:
> >
> > [ARTEMIS-2770] - Update diverts using the management API
> >
>
nd any update and just cut the release ;)
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> > Le 22 juin 2020 à 16:44, Robbie Gemmell a écrit :
> >
> > Emails noting '5.16.0 soon' are getting a bit tedious given its
> > description many times over several months as being ready for vote
> >
Emails noting '5.16.0 soon' are getting a bit tedious given its
description many times over several months as being ready for vote
'now', 'tomorrow', or 'next week'.
It's ok to actually release it. Other version numbers are available
for future changes.
Robbie
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 14:23,
.
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 09:26, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> Did you actually have to change the project SDK to 11? I don't think
> you should need to, and indeed if not perhaps you shouldn't since the
> source level is still 8.
>
> The main issue is Idea forcing use of the ja
Did you actually have to change the project SDK to 11? I don't think
you should need to, and indeed if not perhaps you shouldn't since the
source level is still 8.
The main issue is Idea forcing use of the javac --release flag by
default since the build won't work with that in place, which is why
The source archive should be in the dist repo yes, as 'the source is
the release' so to speak, thus ensuring it actually gets archived etc
(mirroring obviously not as useful in this specific case).
Putting it in the dist dev area for voting helps ensure folks are
actually testing the release as
I raised https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3186 to fix
things to work forJDK8, move it to a profile to make it optional on
JDK8, and enable it in CI. Still on by default in JDK11+.
Robbie
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 15:03, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> The additional couple m
201 - 300 of 678 matches
Mail list logo
