Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I'll post some feedback tomorrow.
Jan
Dne 15. 7. 2022 22:05 napsal uživatel Clebert Suconic
:
I have sent a new PR: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/4150
I have sent a release HEADS up to early next week. if we fix this
issue it would go
I'm particular confused if I should make the check on < 2_18 or <= 2_18
I'm adding a test on 2.17 and 2.18 just to be sure... depending on
failures I will change the < or <=
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 4:24 PM Jan Šmucr wrote:
>
> Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I'll post some feedback
... and I always thought replication would always be used within the
same server.
Recently we added a test on replication versioning (compatibility test).
I will see what I can do with the versioning.
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:43 AM Robbie Gemmell
wrote:
>
> Perhaps, I didnt go looking at
The test I wrote is actually failing with 2.17.
I will check on Monday. But the idea is already there
If you can figure out what I did wrong it would be a great help. But I can
wait for the release.
Let’s talk on Monday.
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 4:52 PM Clebert Suconic
wrote:
> I'm
I have sent a new PR: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/4150
I have sent a release HEADS up to early next week. if we fix this
issue it would go right on time for the 2.24.0 release.
(@Jan: I would appreciate your feedback on the PR)
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 3:12 PM Clebert
This isnt an area I know about but what I vaguely recalled/can see is
that there was coincidentally a wire version bump in 2.18.0 as part of
other changes, see the ARTEMIS_2_18_0_VERSION constant in PacketImpl.
>From that I would guess it should be possible for newer servers to
specifically tell
Dear devs,
I'd like to ask you for help with the communication incompatibility between
pre-2.18.0 servers and the newer ones. What I've learned so far is that in
2.18.0 there's been a change in the REPLICATION_START_FINISH_SYNC packet, yet
no new version of that packet has been introduced.
Perhaps, I didnt go looking at the year old commits to see the
relative sequence of when it changed. The problem being raised wasnt
that the particular PR didnt change the version though (albeit the
version either already had, or subsequently did change, which I was
simply noting in case it wasnt
as far as I know that PR did not make a switch in the protocol version
because there was already another change in there for the same
version... right?
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 6:07 AM Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> This isnt an area I know about but what I vaguely recalled/can see is
> that there was
